Template:Did you know nominations/The Boat Race 2002


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2002

 * ... that Oxford won the 2002 University Boat Race by three-quarters of a length?

Created by The Rambling Man (talk). Self nominated at 11:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Question. I don't see the hook statement in the ref.  Am I missing something?  Also, the ellipses in the hook that precede the question mark seem unnecessary.Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Linked. Ellipses are optional.  Fix them to your taste.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted the ellipses. I still don't see the hook statement in the ref.  The ref states, in that regard, "Oxford cross the line in a time of 16.54 to take a memorable win - two seconds ahead of Cambridge." What am I missing?Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the whole article? "...Oxford pulled away to be three-quarters of a length clear at the finishing post"....?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bizarrely -- that is not appearing on me screen, when I click the url you supplied to support the article's statement that "Oxford pulled away to be three-quarters of a length clear at the finishing post". Even a word search for "quarters" and one for "length" do not surface it.  Perhaps someone else can click the url supplied in the ref in the article, and see if they can find it.Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could search for "Cambridge finishing two seconds behind them, three-quarters of a length behind.[2][8]"? I'm sure one of those links to the official results and you can see the details to your heart's content.  If not, let me know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I see part of the problem. You make the assertion twice.  The first time, you only use one ref.  That ref, as I said, on my computer only indicates what I wrote above -- it does not support the "lengths" statement.  However, you have a second statement of the same, later in the article.  That statement has an additional ref.  That additional ref does indeed support the statement. I'm still puzzled about the first ref -- either your screen shows something different than mine, or it would benefit from having the second supporting ref added.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good -- though I suggest we figure out what the confusion is caused by, discussed above, and make sure that the first mention of the hook fact has a ref that supports it (on my screen, the problem is as I described it).Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)