Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford)/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's already a Good Article and I wonder what more I'd need to do to get it through WP:FAC. I wondered whether it might be too short, but it's a couple of hundred words longer than Hellingly Hospital Railway which was on the Main Page a couple of days ago.
Thanks, BencherliteTalk 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just a quick note, not by any means is it too short to become featured.
Tropical Storm Erick (2007) (one of mine) is just 700 words. I'll preform a thorough review of the article tonight. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment from doncram
- The infobox shows two more or less blank entries, actually showing just a dash (—) for men's_headship= and for women's_headship= fields. Perhaps that is an "em-dash". What is meant by the dash? If unavailable or not applicable, I would think it would be better to write out the words. Or better to blank the field, which in most infoboxes would then remove display of that field. The dashes are not meaningful to me. doncram (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Changed to "not won" in both cases. Thanks. --BencherliteTalk 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, that was a prompt reply! Hmm, maybe that is better for people who understand what is meant already, but i still don't get it. I was thinking "headship" fields were intended to report the men's and women's team directors. Now, I'm guessing that you meant for "Men's headship" to mean something like the last time a "Head of the Charles" type river race was won by the Men's 8 or 4 team or something, and now by "Not won" you might mean it has never won one. Or you mean that they didn't win this year. It's not clear. The Headship link does not define what headship means. This is too cryptic for me still. Perhaps it is a fault of the infobox, which may be used in other articles too, but I think then that the infobox should be fixed to be more clear, and this would be an obstacle to promoting an article using it to FA. doncram (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Changed to "never won". Head of the River (not Headship) does in fact define the term: The term "Head of the River" has also been used for winning crews in regattas since the 19th century, such as the college bumps racing in Oxford or Cambridge. And the third sentence of the lead is Neither the men's nor the women's 1st VIIIs have ever won the main inter-college rowing competition at Oxford, Eights Week (an achievement termed being "Head of the River"), so I'm not sure what else I can do to make it any clearer. Any thoughts? BencherliteTalk 07:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, that was a prompt reply! Hmm, maybe that is better for people who understand what is meant already, but i still don't get it. I was thinking "headship" fields were intended to report the men's and women's team directors. Now, I'm guessing that you meant for "Men's headship" to mean something like the last time a "Head of the Charles" type river race was won by the Men's 8 or 4 team or something, and now by "Not won" you might mean it has never won one. Or you mean that they didn't win this year. It's not clear. The Headship link does not define what headship means. This is too cryptic for me still. Perhaps it is a fault of the infobox, which may be used in other articles too, but I think then that the infobox should be fixed to be more clear, and this would be an obstacle to promoting an article using it to FA. doncram (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Changed to "not won" in both cases. Thanks. --BencherliteTalk 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's getting better. But the Head of the River article, which is pipelinked from "headship" in the infobox does not in fact define or use the word "headship". I thought i was linking to that when i wrote the preceding; it was a surprise to me that headship has a different article. It would be appropriate for the Head of the River article to define headship, and that would make this article clearer. Can you define it there? Or would that get erased by whoever might "own" that article. If the Head of the River article cannot contain a definition of the word "headship", then a new target article for the pipelink from the infobox should be found. Also, I note that wiktionary fails to define the term as you and the infobox are using it. You could perhaps remedy that absence at wiktionary, but the current absence suggests to me that usage of the term in the infobox is a reflection of private jargon that is not accessible and then should not be used in wikipedia. Actually, what do you mean precisely by headship? The last date at which ownership of the Head of the River trophy was won? (then infobox field is filled by date). Membership in the set of all previous owners of the trophy? (then infobox field is filled by Yes/No). Is headship really only used for 8s that win the Head of the River only, and not 4s that might win there, and not singles, 4s or 8s or whatever that win the Head of the Charles in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or other head of the river-named races. I doubt that a monopoly on the term is enforceable, either. Anyhow, it is not obvious to me what your definition would be, and then whether it is being used correctly in the infobox or not. doncram (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I follow now. I've tweaked the infobox to say "Head of the River – Men", to avoid using "headship". 4s / pairs / sculls don't compete in the Oxford Head of the River race and don't have a headship race of their own (AFAIK, certainly nothing on the same scale as Eights Week). --BencherliteTalk 07:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's getting better. But the Head of the River article, which is pipelinked from "headship" in the infobox does not in fact define or use the word "headship". I thought i was linking to that when i wrote the preceding; it was a surprise to me that headship has a different article. It would be appropriate for the Head of the River article to define headship, and that would make this article clearer. Can you define it there? Or would that get erased by whoever might "own" that article. If the Head of the River article cannot contain a definition of the word "headship", then a new target article for the pipelink from the infobox should be found. Also, I note that wiktionary fails to define the term as you and the infobox are using it. You could perhaps remedy that absence at wiktionary, but the current absence suggests to me that usage of the term in the infobox is a reflection of private jargon that is not accessible and then should not be used in wikipedia. Actually, what do you mean precisely by headship? The last date at which ownership of the Head of the River trophy was won? (then infobox field is filled by date). Membership in the set of all previous owners of the trophy? (then infobox field is filled by Yes/No). Is headship really only used for 8s that win the Head of the River only, and not 4s that might win there, and not singles, 4s or 8s or whatever that win the Head of the Charles in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or other head of the river-named races. I doubt that a monopoly on the term is enforceable, either. Anyhow, it is not obvious to me what your definition would be, and then whether it is being used correctly in the infobox or not. doncram (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)