Talk:The Boat Race 1930/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Mostly okay. Some bits where I don't understand what is being said that need to be cleared up.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * "Cambridge were coached by" were -> was
 * No, see English plurals. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Cambridge were considered "slightly the faster" but Oxford were "coming on"" Cambridge is the team here, so singular: were -> was
 * No, again see English plurals. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Just one participant in the race was registered as non-British in Cambridge's American cox Robert Egerton Swartwout" "in" seems the wrong word here; suggest a colon.
 * I think this is preference only, I've used this phrasing several times. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "For the fourth year the umpire was Charles Burnell   " For the fourth time, or the fourth consecutive year?
 * Both, added "consecutive". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Oxford's stroke Martineau responded to a push from Cambridge were nearly a length ahead" Something wrong here (word missing?)
 * "and" was missing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "They extended their lead to two-thirds of a length by Craven Steps but the bend in the river favouring Cambridge, the lead was halved, and by the Mile Post, the Dark Blues led by the length of a canvas." Both the grammar and the arithmetic seem a little off here.
 * Reworded a trifle. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Many thanks for the review, I responded to and addressed the comments where appropriate. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Passing now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)