Talk:The Boat Race 1923/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I will be completing a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

The Rambling Man, I've finished a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article, and while I assess that it meets the majority of criteria for passage to Good Article status, I do have some minor comments, suggestions, and questions that should be addressed. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede should summarize the content from all three sections of the article. Therefore, you should include the following content from the "Crews" section: The result was Oxford's first victory in five years, the narrowest winning margin since the 1913 race and the slowest winning time since the 1920 race.

  That's from the Race section, but have included a nugget of it, without just copying the whole thing again. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • You are absolutely correct, sir. I apologize! But yes, the addition certainly adds to the lede, thus making it a more comprehensive summary of the entire article. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• The lede is otherwise written well, its contents are internally-cited and verifiable, and I have no further comments, questions, or suggestions.

Background

• Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, I suggest consolidating internal citations at the end of sentences in numerical order.

  I've only not done this were direct quotations are involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Understandable, then that works for me in this case! -- Caponer (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• The Harcourt Gilbey Gold caricature is released into the public domain and is therefore appropriate for usage here in this article.
• This section is otherwise written well, its contents are internally-cited and verifiable, and I have no further comments, questions, or suggestions.

Crews

• The Andrew Irvine photograph is released into the public domain and is therefore appropriate for usage here in this article.
• The table is beautifully formatted and all its content is appropriately sourced.
• This section is otherwise written well, its contents are internally-cited and verifiable, and I have no further comments, questions, or suggestions.

Race

• The Championship Course map graphic is released into the public domain and is therefore appropriate for usage here in this article.
• This section is otherwise written well, its contents are internally-cited and verifiable, and I have no further comments, questions, or suggestions.

Thanks for the review, I've commented above where appropriate. Cheer! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, you've outdone yourself again. I see that you've already incorporated some of my suggestions during your initial draft of the article from previous reviews, so there is less and less to comment on as I review your latest work. You're doing a bang up job! -- Caponer (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)