Jump to content

Talk:The Boat Race 2004

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Boat Race 2004/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 08:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this one up: I should be able to go through it fully within the next day or two. - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put together. I've flicked over some of the other GA boat race articles to see how this compares (very well, obviously). Close to GA as it stands, but a few points, questions and queries to mull over.

Overall

  • Possibly add an image of the race (or course) to add a little colour to the article? Adding an image of the course would stop people clicking away from the article to see it.
  • Looking at the 2012 article, there seems to be more info about the women's and reserves races. Is there a reason why there isn't a similar amount here?
    • I guess the only reason is lack of access to pertinent information. The 2012 race background was still heavily covered by sources to which I have access, while the 2004 one is ancient history. Could you suggest any sources I might use to expand these two a little? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Lead

Crews

References

Minor fare, really, and no deal-breakers there, but worth thinking around, even if you don't pick up on any of the suggestions. – SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, sorry I didn't get to them sooner, for some reason I didn't receive any notification that the nomination was on hold, and I missed the update to this page on my watchlist. I've responded inline to each of your comments. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that - my fault: I forgot to ping you on the hold. All good now, and the article is strong enough to pass GA. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: Green tickY
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Green tickY
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: Green tickY
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Green tickY
    C. No original research: Green tickY
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Green tickY
    B. Focused: Green tickY
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias: Green tickY
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc: Green tickY
  6. 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: Green tickY
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Green tickY
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: All good: I am happy to  Pass - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]