Talk:Poohsticks/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Firstly, let me say this a very strange topic, and credit to you for bringing this obscure topic to such a level.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The article is well written, but could I suggest getting a copyeditor at WP:THAMES to do a once over, just to iron out any errors that might be hiding. The lead seems off a little for me, maybe another editor will find a way to improve. Maybe put the Past winners section into a table, and try and find that missing winner.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * A picture of a Poohsticks game in progress
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Great work! Just get the prose looked at again and it'll pass. \ / (⁂) 05:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A picture of a Poohsticks game in progress
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Great work! Just get the prose looked at again and it'll pass. \ / (⁂) 05:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fixed minor prose problems and put winner details into a table. User:David in DC has also given the prose a few tweaks, rewriting the lead. Winners from 2005 and 2008 remain elusive for the moment but I'm sure they'll be found or published eventually. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll leave this on hold until the end of the week, just in case you find the winners, but it's looking good. \ / (⁂) 00:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Passed:The issues below appear to have been resolved. Congratulations. In regards to Featured Article status – copyedit as much as you can, ensure the article is complete, and continue searching for references to add. Best of Luck. \ / (⁂) 10:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

LWB
It is not clear from the article whether the event takes place at the lock bridge or Little Wittenham Bridge or both, and there is no link to the LW Bridge article although this is shown in most of the refs. Motmit (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Most sources seem to say the competition is at Day's Lock, Little Wittenham, not elaborating on whether it's on the lock itself or nearby Little Wittenham Bridge. However, this unrelated article suggests that it takes place at that bridge. Are you identifying the bridge by sight (i.e. appearance) in these articles? I've never seen the bridge myself but the wikipedia photos suggest that it is indeed Little Wittenham Bridge. Should I add that the competition takes place at the bridge with the new ref? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I havent been present at the competition so I don't know the answer. A very occasional editor made an uncited edit about this on LWB. He refers to heats on two bridges and finals at LWB. The other bridge would be the bridge from the lock across the weir stream. I took one of the photos of LWB so I recognise it as the one with banners in the externals. LWB is close enough to the lock for most people to think of it as part of the complex but it needs to be linked to the article. I might load another pic for poohsticks. Regards Motmit (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another picture sounds good. I noted the edits on the LWB article about heats but no source has confirmed or proved this so I'm tempted to just state that the competition is held at the bridge as the above ref notes. Any external sources for this would be most welcome. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any more suitable pics, but you can lift them from the DL and LWB articles if you like. Thinking about it, the bridge at the lock goes over the weir and would be quite unsuitable for this exercise. However Little Wittenham Bridge is in two parts. The photo is of the one over the main stream to Lock House Island, and there is another one over the backwater on the other side of the island. The lock itself would not be used (unlike the Duck Race at Molesey Lock) so Little Wittenham Bridge as illustrated has to be the site. Regards Motmit (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - note the lock keepers house is next to LWB, explaining the origins Motmit (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancies in and between citations
I've been reviewing the article and have found some contradictions within the article and with and between the references. These will need to be addressed for the GAN to pass. Nancy talk  15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The BBC News reference from 16th March 2003 says that the 19th Championship has just taken place however the BBC news reference from 27th March 2006 describes the 23rd Championship. Were two "annual" championships held in either of the intervening years? If not then one of the sources is mistaken and should not be used.
 * 2) None of the sources explicitly state the year in which the first championship was held - using the 2006 article this date could be calculated as 1984, whereas a calculation using the 2003 article would make the inaugural event 1985. There is also a BBC article from 1998 describing the 14th Championships which would place the first one in 1985. This of course assumes an unbroken sequence through the years & is also probably original research too!
 * 3) Neither of these dates agree with the championships section in the article which gives an initial date of 1983 (but does not provide a supporting reference).
 * 4) In the table of past winners the references do not support the text as the winners for the 20th Annual in 2003 are referenced from an article which states that it is reporting on the 19th.
 * 5) The citations themselves need attention as at least one of them (current no 2) has the wrong dates embedded in the cite template - probably worth checking all of the others too
 * I have fixed the citation in point 5 above but have not checked the rest. Nancy  talk  21:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a quick look over these discrepancies: From my research I thought that the championship did not take place in a certain year, the reason why currently escapes me however so this conclusion may have been completely wrong and nothing seems to indicate that this occurred. I've fixed the first event to 1984 as per source 1's "started 14 years ago" (article published March 1998) and evidence from 21st/23rd/24th sources. I think the discrepancy starts with the 1998 source where the journalist has mistakenly calculated that because the competition started fourteen years ago then, being 1998, it must be in its 14th year. This is an incorrect assertion as it would make it the 15th annual competition. The 1998 has been referred back to in the 2003 article (where the BBC picks up the event again) to derive a "19th" annual championships. This has since been corrected from the 2004 article onwards.
 * This is the clearest explanation I can give. Additionally, the mis-tagged date referred to the 2004 source. I think their startling visual similarities] made me mix up the dates! Does this resolve these issues? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had another look at it in the light of Sillyfolkboys very plausible explanation and I think that so long as the 1998 and 2003 references are not used to cite inferred inaugural dates etc (as is now the case) then they are OK to use. Nancy talk  09:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)