Talk:The Boat Race 2005/GA1

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

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 14:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll pick this one up too: again, it may be a day or so before I get going. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've put this page on watchlist so I don't miss it! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Overall Again, nicely put together, and close to GA as it stands. I've made a couple of very small tweaks: nothing too much.

Lead
 * A little on the brief side, but it's a short article, and it seems pointless to repeat the who article in the lead!
 * I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "The race, umpired by six-time Boat…" Worth linking "umpired"?
 * Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Crews
 * "Oxford coach Dan Topolski rated both crews as "good enough to make an Olympic final".": this looks like it's a direct quote from Topolski, but the source doesn't seem to suggest it is.
 * Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Race description
 * "Oxford out-rated Cambridge": it may be worth a footnote to explain what "out-rated" means, for those who may not know.
 * Linked to our glossary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No dab or dead links, refs are solid.

Again, minor pickings from me, and no deal-breakers again, just a little tweak here and there. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, you're a gent. Have responded and updated accordingly, hopefully by the time you're back I'll have made the lead a bit fatter.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent: all good and happy to pass here.


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: All good: I am happy to ✅ – SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: All good: I am happy to ✅ – SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: All good: I am happy to ✅ – SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail: All good: I am happy to ✅ – SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)