Talk:Rowing (sport)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Rowing (sport) was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Water sports (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Rowing (sport) is within the scope of the WikiProject Water sports, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Water sports. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Rowing (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rowing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rowing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Rowing (sport):
  • Improve lead section (2 to 3 paragraph- summary of the whole page)
  • Add inline citations for every paragraph that is missing them. (basic information, Rowing propulsion, Fitness and health, Equipment, Steering, Oars, Boat storage and boat houses, Competition, Head races, Boat positions, Weight classes, Women, Terminology)
  • Keep article size down, by;
    • Removing unnecesary text
    • Moving large sections to sub-articles
  • Add images where appropriate
  • Expand section about coxswains, what they do, the max weights, etc.
  • Address any other points raised in last peer review here

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Rowing (sport)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am only a very small percentage of the way through the article but I can see that the Lead will need to be greatly expanded per WP:LEAD. The Lead is to be a summary of all the points brought up in the article. An article of this length should have a 2-3 paragraph lead.

I'm also concerned about a lack of references in the Rowing section. Thus far I see that the description of the two forms of rowing is not referenced, also the Rowing propulsion and Fitness and health subsections are not referenced. This is a concern that will likely be raised again given the fact that there are only 27 in-line citations and a majority of them appear to be in the History section. More to come. H1nkles (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The History section looks good, I put a [citation needed] template in the FISA subsection though at the point of facts about Rowing's participation in the Olympics, this should have a reference.

Speaking of references the Equipment section is devoid of a single in-line citation, this should be remedied. Also the Colours subsection is two sentences, a bit short for its own section, can it be combined with the Oars subsection?

In the Competition section I put another [citation needed] template after the statement that rowers have the highest power outputs of any athletes in any sport. This should be referenced. In the Side by side subsection, why is side by side bold? This doesn't seem to fit with the MOS. As a general comment, when there are distances they should show both metric and imperial conversions. Per WP:UNIT that would mean the imperial conversion would be in parentheses. For example 10 km (6.2 miles). Also be consistent with putting metric first and imperial in parentheses. H1nkles (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In the World Championships subsection there should be a reference after the assertion that athletes consider the Olympic events to be the premier events. This could be a violation of WP:WEASEL unless there is a citation. There is a general lack of references in this section. The Women subsection seems to have a lot of specific information about the rowing conditions in the U.S. There is no comparable information about other countries. This could be construed as a bias. Also some of the information is a bit superfluous.

In the References section # 24 is dead and # 25 times out. Please repair. The formatting is pretty good, usually italics is reserved for newspaper, book or jounal titles, but that's not a big deal.

Overarching comments: The primary problems with the article are a general lack of references and the lead needs to be expanded to encompass all subjects addressed in the article. I put a couple of [citation needed] templates into the article but this is just a start. The writing is solid, the photos are good, the article is stable. There are a few MOS issues but I wouldn't hold up GA listing on them. It really comes down to the references and the lead. I will put the article on hold for a week pending work. I will notify interested projects and editors in the hope that these issues can be addressed and the article can be kept at GA. Should you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has been on hold for the better part of three weeks and no appreciable work has been done on my recommendations. As such I will delist the article from GA and encourage any interested editors to bring the article back up to GA Criteria and renominate at WP:GAC. H1nkles (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Scull blade area?[edit]

This

The combined blade area of a pair of sculls is however greater than that of a single sweep oar, so the oarsman when sculling is working against more water than when rowing sweep-oared. He is able to do this because the body action in sculling is more anatomically efficient (due to the symmetry).

seems dubious to me. When rowing (properly) you aren't moving water, you are moving the boat through the water while the blade is essentially fixed. So a bigger blade is no more work William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes - it also ignores the "gearing" of the blades - ratio of inboard to length to outboard length, which will be significantly different. --Ozhiker (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with this, rowing is a movement of yourself and not the water around you. Imagine the water as a solid object that you are grabbing and pulling yourself forwards with over and over again, you are incrementally pulling yourself along. But what if you are rowing in a current that is just as strong as you, would you be moving forward just as fast as the water is pushing you back or in that case would you be pushing that water away. I believe that it would be the first case where you are moving just as fast as it is pushing back which causes you not to move at all. Imagine it as if it where you running on a tread mill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.76.252 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Regaining Good article status[edit]

I've made an edit to start to bring the article back to good article status, based on the recommendations.

  • Shortened the anatomy of stroke section - I didn't this needed as much detail for general readers - it should be on the main article page.
  • Merged Oars and colours sections
  • Add a number of images - e.g. sculler, oarlock, side by side race
  • Distances should now all be in metric and imperial conversions
  • Added heavyweight header and put this and lightweight under the weight-classes header
  • Removed a lot of the see also's at the bottom, these are linked in the rowing navbox.


Still to do (that I can see):

  • Improve lead section (2 to 3 paragraph- summary of the whole page)
  • Inline citations/references (lacking in these sections - basic information, Rowing propulsion, Fitness and health, Equipment, Steering, Oars, Boat storage and boat houses, Competition, Head races, Boat positions, Weight classes, Women, Terminology)
  • Images needed for some sections


If you can help out with any of these please do! Update the list as you go. Also, join WP:Rowing if you have an interest in rowing articles -Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

feathering[edit]

Why?? Does the aerodynamic drag really matter that much?
Also: Certainly derived from this: Propeller (aeronautics)#Feathering
--BjKa (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it sure does - try it at race speed! But it's also to reduce the height the blade must be carried over the water, and to lessen the impact if the blade touches the water during the recovery. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian origins[edit]

The article makes references to the origins of the sport in ancient Egypt but seems to reference Greek and Roman mythology as a source. While I don't suggest that mythology should be dismissed out of hand, I feel the need to point out another source I've just found while investigating this topic. "Historically, race rowing was unknown in ancient Egypt (Touny and Wenig, 1969), or to the Vikings (Wahlqvist, 1978) despite the fact that they depended on boats which could be rowed for transport." [Physiology of Sports], edited by Thomas Reilly, N. Secher, P. Snell, C. Williams, Dr C Williams, p229. Is this something that deserves inclusion in the article? I think it does. --Eamonnca1 TALK 00:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)