Talk:The Boat Race 1923/GA1

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

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

, 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)

, 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per 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 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)