Talk:The Boat Race 1864/GA1

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Ritchie333 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 15:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Another boat race? Why not, eh?

Lead edit

  • Compared to some of the other boat race articles, the lead is just a little bit short. I think it's probably best to make things consistent eg: "The nth Boat Race took place on [date]. Held annually, it is a side-by-side rowing event between Oxford and Cambridge etc etc" Then do the specifics of this one.
    Have made some changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Background edit

  • "in order to reduce the threat to the race from the regular interruptions from steamers" - there's a lot of clauses and prepositions in that sentence. I wonder if we could break things up a bit. Maybe "in order to reduce interruptions by steamer traffic" would work better?
    Reworked. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Mortlake should be wikilinked
    Thus linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Crews edit

 
6 foot is tall? Are you having a giraffe?
  • "Cambridge's crew, however, was tall" - I've got a niggling feeling that "tall" in this context is one of those words to watch, certainly when compared to Robert Pershing Wadlow, Yao Ming or a giraffe, 6' is tall, but not that tall. I think it's best to just stick to the facts.
    Really quick one, just have a read of this, yes 6 feet is very tall ... in 1864. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, that's a good point well made, and one I remind myself of every time I bang my head on the doorway of a pub built in the 17th century or earlier! (Still, I couldn't leave that Martinevans123esque "are you having a giraffe" pun) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
    I liked it. I also like giraffes. So it was a win–win for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Race edit

  • "The Prince of Wales, future King of the United Kingdom Edward VII" - I'm not sure this is consistent on how we name future monarchs in other articles. In Blackwall Tunnel (one of my GAs), Edward VII is wikilinked as "Prince of Wales". Whether this runs contrary to what's in WP:EASTER, I'm not sure.
    I don't know, the source just calls him the Prince of Wales, I felt it more appropriate to be specific on which particular one, so arrived at this compromise. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • "Oxford had restored parity" - "parity"'s a bit flowery, isn't it? How about "Oxford had caught up"?
    Not sure I agree. As an engineer, we use "parity" all the time as a commonplace to denote a position of equality or evenness... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Oh yes, I recognise the term from my days as a Z80 assembler programmer, with instructions like JP PE, xxxx ("jump if parity even flag set to address xxxx"), it's just not a word I'd particularly associate with boat racing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Cool, the parity bit. My favourite bit of all time. Have rephrased and added a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • " in a time of 21 minutes 40 seconds" - the source says 21 minutes, 4 seconds
    Yep, here's a thing, when the official website was moved from boatrace.org to boatraces.org, they messed up some of the results. All of my paper sources disagreed with the "official source" so I emailed them to let them know. Needless to say I got no response, but, just like magic, the numbers have been fixed. And have now been fixed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Summary edit

  • Nothing else to report, so I'll put this on hold now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, for the nth time. I appreciate your detailed reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, I don't think the parity thing is a showstopper, and at least we spotted a factual error, which are IMHO the most important things to grab in a GA review. Now passed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply