Jump to content

Talk:The Boat Races 2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleThe Boat Races 2015 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2021.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 16, 2015Good article nomineeListed
May 24, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
August 29, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 11, 2015.
Current status: Featured article

Name

[edit]

While I doubt this will get too much traffic, I was hoping for some debate over the title of the article. This event will be the first time that the women's race will be on a equal footing and conducted on the Tideway, so my first instinct is to suggest this becomes "The Boat Races 2015" and I modify the lead accordingly. Any feelings anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it. BOLD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of a few articles for the BBC (e.g. here, here, here and here), the majority of the articles that I'm seeing are still referring to this race in the singular (e.g. The Telegraph, London Evening Standard, The Guardian and The Independent). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the change. The primary source is referring to the races, plural. The BNY Mellon Boat Races Whizz40 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not of great consequence at this moment, there's a redirect taking our readers to this article should they opt for The Boat Race 2015, I think it's probably wise to allow time to pass before making any further comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Balding

[edit]

This article maybe of note? Cantab12 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order

[edit]

Is there any reason, apart from being obviously alphabetical, that the woman sections precede the men's? -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One has to go before the other. In terms of the race bit, the women's race took place before the men's so talking about it in that order would make sense. -- KTC (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures from the finish line

[edit]

I've uploaded a variety of shots in case they are useful - Pointillist (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for Front Page News

[edit]

I want to point out that annual inter-university boat races, even between two prestigious universities, is of little interest or relevance to the vast majority of Wikipedia users.

Why not mention large scale events that actually have an impact on the world such as the membership expansion of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?

This boat race is a local event of local interest, having NO impact on history and NO impact on the lives of any who live on Earth (apart from the racers and support team - a few dozen people).

Perhaps Wikipedia should now place celebrity pregnancy stories on the front page? Perhaps the results of a local children's athletics carnival as well?

Total rubbish that should be immediately removed from the Front Page news.

27.32.45.152 (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Please discuss it in the appropriate location, which isn't here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Boat Races 2015/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 22:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    A few quibbles.
    • "The Autumn reception" Per MOS:SEASON, "autumn" should not be capitalised.
    • "headstart" should "head start"
    • "fightback" should be "fight back"
    • "p.m" should be "p.m." or "pm" per MOS:TIME (multiple times)
    • "Rachel Quarrell, the former Oxford cox" Link the first use of cox to Coxswain (rowing)
    • Duplicated links: Boris Rankov, Molesey Boat Club (2), Goldie, stroke, Constantine Louloudis. Hammersmith Bridge, Barnes Bridge (2), out-rating, St Paul's School
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    All the links are good, a benefit of getting the article reviewed quickly
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
    A fine, well-written account
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  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:
    All images appropriately tagged. A lot of good images by Pointillist and Katie Chan. Well done there!
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pretty good overall.
Thanks for the review, much appreciated. I believe I've addressed your comments, but do let me know if there's anything else I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images and Good article criteria

[edit]

Perhaps Hawkeye7 was just being courteous about images? Having uploaded mine to Commons as PD or CC-by-SA of course I've no right to object to en.wikipedia editors assessing them in context, whether or not I participated in how they were used. Nevertheless I want to make it crystal clear that I take no part in enwiki's somewhat incestuous Good article (GA), In the News (ITN) and Did you know (DYK) how boring we are processes. Scoring points that way has never been my motivation for improving articles, I promise. - Pointillist (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Boat Races 2015. 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) 06:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FRAC

[edit]

A user has unilaterally gone against MOS and changed fractions from using {{frac}}. As this is an FA it needs to comply with MOS. There is no good reason for this to have happened so unless there's consensus against the MOS-compliant version, I'll restore it in due course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]