Talk:The Boat Race 1893/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Seattle (talk · contribs) 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can review this soon. Seattle (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No DAB links, no dead links, files check out in terms of copyright
Hurrah! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford won by a length and a quarter in a time of 18 minutes 45 seconds which as perhaps was?
Indeed, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R. C. Lehmann changed his hue of blue that quickly? He coached Oxford in The Boat Race 1892
Yes, in fact he coached both in 1892. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I'm surprised by how much information available for Boat Race articles that you haven't included. On a quick search, I found an article from 1889, a book that chronologizes all boat races from 1829–1899, another that similarly chronologizes all boat races from 1829–1880, one on the 1893 race itself, and a newspaper clipping available on Amazon. Templating these articles doesn't work, and I am disappointed that I passed so many before this realization. I'm not passing this until at least the second and fourth links are included in this article. I'm disappointed... particularly in myself, but, that said, I haven't scoped through these articles to asses their value either. Seattle (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no access to any of those links. The Google links just show me book front covers, while the Amazon link needs me to buy the item from the US. I won't be doing that, nor should I have to. I have already included three paper sources to cover this, each of those paper sources seem to meet what you're describing in the first instance, a year by year chronology of each race, from 1829 to 1978 (in Burnell's case), 1829 to 1928 (in Drinkwater's case) and 1829 to 1982 (in Dodd's case). The second and third books are seminal, the first is more a summary of the Drinkwater reports but includes several facts omitted from both Drinkwater and Dodd. Drinkwater and Dodd summarise contemporaneous reports as well as add opinions of their own. What aspects of the coverage are missing from this or any other article you now are disappointed with? If you are not going to pass this article unless I find and buy those items, then we'll have to agree to differ I suppose, and I'll ask someone else to review the article. Thanks for your help so far though. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never asked you to buy anything. I asked you to include [1] (linked more directly), which describes Lewis' row rate and the weather conditions, and [2], which describes the strength of the Oxford crew, potential trouble from repairs to the London and Southwestern Railway Bridge, and the crowd size. If you read what I wrote, I didn't implore you to buy anything; I said I'm not passing this until at least the second and fourth links are included, which were the freely available books on Google. Seattle (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those links still don't work at all (they just point at the books themselves, no information within). I guess you get different results to me. I'm not going to include links which are meaningless I'm afraid. I read what you said, and I told you your links point to books and Amazon items, no actual information on the race itself that can be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do these work: [3] and [4]? Seattle (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not for me, same result again, a link to books I could buy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. Took screenshots [5]. One and Four are from the first link; two and three are from the second, relative to here. Seattle (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can you provide page numbers, for the information you've uploaded? By the way, weather conditions are already covered and cited.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One and four have page numbers included; two and three are from page 29, but three comes before two. Seattle (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Author names? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One and four: Peacock, Wadham. Third and second: James H. Worman (editor in chief). Publishers: Grant Richards, The Outing Company, Limited (respectively). Year: 1900, 1893 (respectively). Seattle (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some stuff, this has just become far too difficult to follow. I find it very difficult to cross-reference screenshots to "first and fourth" etc with various items you consider are missing. If you'd like to help and do it yourself, that'd be fine, otherwise, I'll just follow Bencherlite's advice and not worry too much about it. If that means you'll now fail the article, I understand. I think the most useful thing that's come out of this is that people get different access to Google's books, I guess it's because those that you've linked are American, and I'm not. Ironically, the better sources would naturally be those from the UK, e.g. Burnell, Dodd, Ross, Drinkwater........ The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford boat included five former Blues including two variations of "included" in a rather rapid succession
Switched one out. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

started the race at 4.35pm MOS:TIME
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's "The Doves" pub on the course? Seattle (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added note. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I take your point about the additional sources. Of course, there will always be other sources I can find, but right now this is a Good Article review, not Featured Article. If there are aspects of the coverage that are lacking in any of the specific articles, I'll do my best to address them, I've got four paper sources that variously deal with each race in various levels of detail, I'll endeavour to surf Google as well. As I noted above, if you can't pass this until I go buying more sources then that's that. Thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Read what I wrote. Seattle (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, I can't access what you seem to be able to access (nor can Bencherlite it would appear).... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(3) Broad in its coverage: "Point A means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed" in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects." I can't see those Google links either, but unless they show that main aspects are not covered then they do not need to be included at GA level. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General thought: you said "I'm surprised by how much information available for Boat Race articles that you haven't included" and then you said "Templating these articles doesn't work, and I am disappointed that I passed so many before this realization". This is a really huge issue for me. I have no intention on rushing Boat Race articles through (which didn't exist until I created them all) but you now seem to have had some kind of anti-epiphany which means that the books I don't have access to are somehow essential for inclusion and the books I do have and use are inadequate. This is a good article review, a good article, as far as I know, is supposed to cover the whole subject adequately rather than going to town on sourcing. I've done what I think is reasonable with the resources I have. The seminal works on the race itself have been included, and I'm really unclear on the vital elements of the event that you believe are missing. I'm truly sorry that you're "disappointed" about the articles you've passed. If that's the case, and if you have the energy, please help me update those articles you've promoted to an extent that you no longer feel disappointed with them or yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing, as the article meets criterion three of the good article criteria. For featured article status, I'll examine the sources to find if any relevant materials are excluded. Seattle (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. You'll note that I have only three Boat Race FAs and have yet to nominate a fourth. But you simply cannot outright reject a nomination the way you did, just because you have access to those sources, and it's clear I didn't, you can't hold people to ransom over it. Thanks again for your review. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]