Jump to content

Talk:The Boat Race

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sam Blacketer (talk | contribs) at 21:38, 29 April 2019 (→Contemporary primary sources: One not in the list but which had a long report.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findnotice

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 16:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Overall, this article falls well short of the GA criteria, most obviously regarding referencing: it is very under-referenced, with lots of facts presented without anything to back them up.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The article is broadly well-written and complies with the MoS requirements set out in the GA criteria.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The article is under-sourced throughout. A large number of facts and opinions are presented without a source to back them up, especially in the "Competitors" and "Results and statistics". Many of those references that are provided are not written out fully, variously missing author's details, publication dates, access dates and in the case of ref #11, everything but the link and the title, a generic "The Boat Race".
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    In the history section, an undue amount of attention seems to be given to the races since 2000.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    The use of images is generally good, but the copyright tags are not complete on all of them: File:1841 Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race.jpg for example requires a United States public domain tag in addition to the license provided.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    In my opinion, this article currently falls well short of the GA guidelines. I would look at adding more information on races into the history section; hopefully the creation of articles on each year's race should help find more that can be usefully added in to this, and should help to avoid the appearance of "recentism". The list of race winners would probably be better presented in a separate "List article", with more of a prosaic summary presented in this article. Most importantly though, a lot of work is needed on adding references for the information given. Generally, I would quick-fail an article that has fallen this short because of the amount of work needed, but given the length of the GA backlog, I'm happy to leave this review open for a while to allow you to do what work you can. As more work is completed, I am happy to present a more detailed review as needed. Harrias talk 16:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2a

  • Ref #1 is lacking any details other than the title.
  • Ref #2 has double speech-marks. Link to The Daily Telegraph.
  • Ref #3, use {{Whatdotheyknow.com}}.
  • Ref #5 needs a page number.
  • Ref #6 is lacking any details other than the title.
  • Ref #7, link Daily Mail, to maintain consistency with other references, format name as Mount, Harry.
  • Ref #9 is lacking any details other than the title.
  • Ref #10, link BBC Sport, no need to state "website".
  • Ref #11 is lacking any details other than the title.
  • Ref #12 requires an access date, and I'm not sure that "The Race History" is an appropriate publisher title.
  • Ref #13, link The Observer, no need to state "website".
  • Ref #14, link BBC News, no need to state "website".
  • Ref #15, link The Independent, to maintain consistency with other references, format name as Peck, Tom, add access date.
  • Ref #17, the publisher title should be the same as for ref #12, and I'm not sure the page title is right for this one.
  • Ref #18, add author details, link Sydney Morning Herald.
  • Ref #19, link The Observer, to maintain consistency with other references, format name as Bull, Andy, and get rid of the "at Mortlake" bit.

I will stop there, but 16 of the first 20 references need work, and the rest look to follow along the same lines. Harrias talk 09:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Please note that ref numbers have jumped around a bit.

  • 1-10 complete 06:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 11-20 complete 06:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 21-30 complete 06:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 31-40 complete 07:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 41-51 complete 07:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Harrias: All done. @Harrias:: Please continue with the review - - NickGibson3900 Talk 01:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2b,c

Thanks for your work on the above. Sorry for my absence, real-life got kind of hectic. What you've done to the references in place looks pretty good. However, what is still very much lacking is a sufficient number of such sources. Essentially, everything in the article which isn't self-evident should be referenced. In some cases a whole paragraph or even two paragraphs could be cited to one source, in other places one sentence might require two separate sources. Realistically, in a good article, I would expect to see at least one reference per paragraph (with occasional exceptions). At the moment there are whole sections, let alone paragraphs, particularly in the History section, that have no references at all. Harrias talk 09:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NickGibson3900:, forgot to let you know I'd crept out of my hole and commented further. Harrias talk 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks for this. I will work on the refs over the weekend -NickGibson3900 Talk 10:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Thanks for the review. I have started working on references and images and hope to have them finished in the 7 day timescale. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 01:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: I have fixed the images, would you care to check them? NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 01:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have done the references as well. Requesting review of criteria 6A, 2A, and 2C NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 07:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC) I have also split the results tables into a separate article. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Hi just a friendly reminder about this GAN. NickGibson3900 Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions 08:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More

@Harrias:, I now believe the History section is referenced up to GA standards. Where else should I focus on? - NickGibson3900 Talk 01:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a requirement to cite every paragraph or section, though as the information in each section/paragraph would have come from a reliable source, it is helpful and reassuring to readers and researchers to regularly cite the sources used, even if the material isn't likely to be challenged. Material that is likely to be challenged does need citing for a GA listing - likely challengeable statements are those which appear to be editorial opinion, such as "The question whether the Boat Race crews are up to the standard of international crews is difficult to judge", large claims such as "The race which took place on 30 March 1895 became the subject of one of the world's first motion pictures directed by Birt Acres", and essential facts such as "The course for the main part of the race's history has been from Putney to Mortlake, but there have been three other courses".
In addition to improving the inline citation, attention may be given to the layout of the article. The History section contains some short sub-sections which inhibit the flow. Just based on the History section it looks to me that the article is not broad enough to meet GA criteria 3a. It appears to be a less of a history than a random selection of events, with little to guide the reader as to why the 1877 dead heat and 1987 mutiny both get three paragraphs, while the 1959 mutiny only gets three short sentences. Also, why does the history jump from 1877 to 1959 then to 1987 - what happened in between theses dates. What changes, improvements, developments occurred?
The lead could do with some attention as it doesn't quite summarise the main information in the article. As a general guideline, the lead should summarise the main point(s) from each main section and sub-section. If there is a lengthy section which isn't mentioned in the lead, either it needs to be mentioned, or the section cut from the article as not essential.
The course section is media rich and quite detailed. The presentation in small boxes with coordinates and lots of small media images is not helpful, particularly on a mobile phone where the text is somewhat squashed. This section is perhaps too focused, and consideration could be given to splitting out that section into a standalone article where space could be given to allow the text and images to be read more comfortably, and to have an overall prose summary of the course in this main article.
The article would also benefit from a coverage of the rules and process, and how this has developed, and something on the equipment. See Formula One for some ideas.
As the article is currently inadequately sourced and lacking in coverage of main aspects, I have moved the classing from B to C. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias and SilkTork: I have withdrawn the nomination - NickGibson3900 Talk 02:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The logo in this article is out of date - new logo on http://theboatraces.org/ has word "RACES" instead of "RACE". If anyone out there is a graphics geek, could they fix this? It seems non-trivial as right-clicking on the logo on the website doesn't offer any "save image" options, so it's apparently not a separate image file. PamD 15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Boat Race → The Boat Races – This year the women's boat race is also happening on the tideway and the event has been re-branded as The Boat Races. However, the BNY Mellon Boat Race and the Newton Women's Boat race remain as brand names for the specific races. It is also the case that all the information about the women's boat races preceding 2015 is contained in the article about the Henley Boat Race. Given the complexity of this issue I thought it should be discussed before any move. Should this page be moved to The Boat Races? Alternatively should a seperate page be made for The Boat Races, and perhaps even one for the Women's Boat Race separate from the Henley Boat Races article? Bosstopher (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There have always been multiple races as the reserve crews race first on the same day. The event is traditionally known as the Boat Race (singular) and we should stick with this per WP:COMMONNAME, unless and until we see that this new addition sticks. The organisers have also been using the sponsor's name for the event before but I don't get the impression that that has much currency. Andrew D. (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Support I am open to the idea of having one article for both events as The Boat Races which would certainly avoid the WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS of having the different classes of title. Otherwise I suggest keeping the title The Boat Race for the history of related Boat Race events, and then have two sub and stub articles: Results of The Boat Race, men's event and Results of The Boat Race, women's event. In any case, since 1965, there have been two events in "The Boat Race", the main race and the reserve race.

In both contents: Template:Cambridge University Rowing Clubs and Template:Oxford University Rowing Clubs, the "event" is called The Boat Race. As far as I remember, and I have watched "it" most years, "The Boat Race" has always referred to the whole event. If the event, associated with Oxford and Cambridge geniuses, is finally being titled with correct grammar, then good luck to them. GregKaye 01:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I drafted a disambiguation page for The Boat Races in my sandbox. Some sources are included as hidden text. Welcome any comments. Whizz40 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support creation of a disambig page Seems like the best solution.Bosstopher (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The term "the Boat Race" is very well established in Britain for this specific race, although there may be a case for moving it to something more specific in an international encyclopedia. However "the Boat Races" would not be meaningful to most British people, far from obvious that this covers both the men and women's events, some might assume it referred to the men's races over the years. PatGallacher (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Based on the comments above, I'll create the navigation page The Boat Races. Whizz40 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage: self-serving?

While Boat Race is clearly an (upper) class event, it has been reasonably easy for the ruling elite to con-vince people that it is some kind of a working class event - were the lower orders can watch for free. So, in relation to the Boat Race, should not Wikipedia re-consider the term "British national institution"? .

References http://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/The-University-Year/The-Boat-Race

This link is broken unsure how to take it out or fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbos2hm (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Startling course image error!!

Dear Wikipedians, Why is the image representing the course West to East, i.e. a negative of the actuality? The course goes up river westwards, so why show the start on the right when it should be on the left? Unfortunately, I do not possess the skills to alter it, but I am sure someone else can. In hope, --Po Kadzieli (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is quite clearly because when you look at a map of the Thames you expect the West to be on the left, and East to be on the right (otherwise your map would be upside down). The image is quite clear where the start and end are located. Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge lead in cumulative wins date

The lead states that "Cambridge has led Oxford in cumulative wins since 1928" - this isn't supported by the table on List of The Boat Race results#Main_race which shows Oxford still leading by 40-39 after the 1928 race. It looks like Cambridge levelled the score in 1929 and finally went ahead with a win in 1930. I don't want to change this article myself as I'm not really sure of the history and whether maybe some races are discounted as part of the overall score but it looks like something isn't correct somewhere. --Bcp67 (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks, I've cross-checked with the list of results as you noted and I have adjusted the lead to say since 1930, not since 1928. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks - I've now fixed the lead of that list itself to read 1930 as well. There is a cite after that year there to a website of results but I can't see anything specific on that site referring to Cambridge taking the overall lead so I've left the cite alone. Thanks for picking that fix up, all the best. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request move to "The Boat Races"

Requested move 3 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Boat Race → The Boat Races – "The Boat Race" apparently has changed to "The Boat Races" to include the women's race too. The logo has now changed too, where it hadn't in 2015 (above). SethWhales talk 20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Following on the discussion, I'll add the relevant move requests to move Category:The Boat Race and Template: The Boat Race to the plural since they both already cover both races. Whizz40 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Race of 1839

What happened in 1839, did Oxford sink or run aground? --95.222.186.244 (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. The race is described at The Boat Race 1839. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Boat Race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Boat Race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Boat Race and Women's Boat Race articles

Currently, we have this article, which covers the men's race, and also the women's race in less detail (with separate infoboxes for both); and Women's Boat Race, which covers only the women's race.

I'd suggest we either need to (a) make this article more clearly about the men's race - explicitly specify this in the lead, remove the women's race infobox, remove "Men's Race" subheadings, move any women's race-specific content into the Women's Boat race article and mention the women's race only in passing or as relevant to the men's race; or (b) merge the two articles.

For what it's worth, the current official website uses "The Boat Race" to mean the entire event, and "The Men's Boat Race" and "The Women's Boat Race" for the separate races. I suspect, though, that in common parlance "The Boat Race" often means the men's event. TSP (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the men's Boat Race was completely separate from the Women's Boat Race for 189 years until 2015. The history of the women's race is covered separately in a Good Article. This article is closer to C-Level. Unless an editor who knows the topic well is willing to improve this article and there is a consensus to combine them, then I suggest we keep the two articles separate. However, as you note the current races are run as a single event so readers would now expect this article to reflect that. Hence my proposal for the current compromise as the most stable alternative that is easily navigable for readers. That is, this article covers the combined event and the Men's race and its history in detail, with references to the Women's Boat Race article in WP:Summary Style. Whizz40 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That gets my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Though worrying about the editing history and relative quality of the articles seems a bit editor-centric rather than reader-centric?
I think the biggest problem may be the headnotes. This article has "For the Women's Boat Race, see Women's Boat Race"; that article has "For the Men's Boat Race, see The Boat Race." That strongly suggests this article is only about the men's race, which is not the case.
Perhaps "For the separate history of the Women's race, see Women's Boat Race"; and "for the Men's race and the current combined event, see The Boat Race"? It's a bit long, but I think the current situation is pretty confusing. TSP (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, however that information may belong in the article itself per WP:LEGITHAT. In which case, we should remove those hatnotes from this article and the Women's Boat Race article. Whizz40 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - I think that's best; on reflection neither of the hatnotes is actually helpful.
I think "For the 1895 film, see The Oxford and Cambridge University Boat Race (film)." can go too - it's a film about this event, already mentioned in the Media Coverage section.
I'd suggest this article should have This article is about the race between Oxford and Cambridge universities. For other uses, see Boat race (disambiguation). ('Oxbridge' is a bit jargony for a disambiguation) and Women's Boat Race doesn't need a hatnote at all. TSP (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Whizz40 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Text of 1987 Oxford mutiny

The section relating to the 1987 mutiny stated "A fitness test between Clark and Macdonald (in which the American triumphed) resulted in a call for the Scotsman's removal". However Macdonald was not mentioned in the text before this, so the statement lacked context. For this reason I have slightly amended the statement. Dunarc (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this further for clarity. It's very literary to talk about "the American" and "the Scotsman", but given that Macdonald's nationality had never been mentioned before and Clark's not for several paragraphs, it's a lot less confusing to simply use their names. TSP (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I think this makes things much clearer and reads much better. Dunarc (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1877 Boat Race outcome

Contemporary primary sources

The following list of newspapers publishing in 1877 is based on that in "British Historical Facts 1830–1900" ed. Chris Cook and Brendan Keith (St Martin's Press, 1975).

Sunday newspapers of 25 March 1877

  • The Examiner
  • Illustrated London News
  • Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper: "the Cantabs coming with a great and well-sustained effort 100 yards below the Ship, made a DEAD HEAT of it at the finishing point at Barker's rails. ... The Oxonians appealed from the decision of John Phelps, the judge, to Mr. Joseph Chitty, Q.C., the umpire. The learned gentleman was "opening" a case before the Master of the Rolls, when he learned that his presence was desired elsewhere. Straightway the learned advocate was transformed into a judge, and the all-important cause of Oxford and Cambridge was argued before him in the Rolls robing-room. The impartial lovers of aquatics will not be sorry to learn that the judgment of the court below was affirmed, and the appeal dismissed, of course without costs.
    • Phelps asserts that the boats came in so close together that it was impossible for him to do otherwise than declare it a dead heat." (No mention of "dead heat to Oxford".) page 7, column 5.
  • News of the World
  • Observer
  • Reynolds Newspaper
  • The Spectator
  • Sunday Dispatch
  • Sunday Illustrated News
  • Sunday Referee (founded 1877; check it was by 24 March)
  • Sunday Times: "A few strokes from the winning-post both boats were exactly level and close alongside one another; but on nearing the flag-post the Oxford coxswain pulled his right string and threw the boats aart again, so that it was most difficult to really see which boat, if either, was ahead. John Phelps fired the gun as the signal of the conclusion of the race. His verdict was a DEAD HEAT, but amont the crowd of boats which congregated together in the general anxiety to learn the result of so close a finish it was some time before he could be found, and it was at first thought that Oxford had won by a yard or so." (No mention of "dead heat to Oxford".) page 5, column 4.

Daily newspapers

  • Daily Chronicle
  • Daily News
  • Daily Telegraph
  • Manchester Guardian
  • Morning Advertiser (?? specialist paper for the licensed trade)
  • Morning Post
  • The Standard
  • The Times

London evening newspapers

  • Globe
  • Pall Mall Gazette
  • The Echo
  • The Star

Provincial press

Secondary sources

Comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Boat_Race&oldid=894764834"