Talk:The Boat Race 1894/GA1

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

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 14:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Rambling Man, I will begin a comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lede

  • The lede should be a comprehensive summary of all the article's section, so I suggest adding "Oxford went into the race as reigning champions" or some variation thereof to the lede to better incorporate the "Background" section. Perhaps also mention that Oxford "held the overall lead, with 27 victories to Cambridge's 22" prior to this boat race.
    Have added some. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • The "Crews" section needs to be represented in the lede in order for it to be truly be a comprehensive summary. I'll leave it up to which makes most since to be included, whether it be the average weights or how many participants had been involved with previous boat races.
    Have added some. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • It should be added to the lead that the race was their largest margin of victory since the 1883 race.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Background

Crews

Race

The Rambling Man, I have completed my review of your article. Your internal citations of source that I have access to check out. As always, you've wonderfully-written another great article documenting The Boat Race event. Once you've made your edits, I feel this article will be ready for passage to Good Article status. -- Caponer (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm done, thanks once again for your reviews and your support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

The Rambling Man, thank you for your timely responses to my above mentioned comments and suggestions to your article. Upon re-review of your article, I find that you've satisfactorily incorporated my suggested edits and your article more than meets the criteria for Good Article status. I appreciate your patience and participation throughout this process. Another job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply