Talk:Women's Boat Race

The Topic of this article

@Andrew Davidson: The Women's Boat Race is specifically a race between OUWBC, and CUWBC, why are making this a general article about women's rowing on the tideway? The article on the men's Boat Race only tangentially mentions Head of the River Race despite it being the same course in reverse, why should this article have the background history of the Women's Head of River Race in it? Bosstopher (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should't jump the gun? This is a reasonably new topic, although as the article notes there have been races between female crews for some time. The point of the sudden interest is that in a month's time we'll see women racing on the Tideway just as we have seen men for the last nearly 200 years. If you'd like to improve the article, please do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Pathé source describes that 1927 event as the "First Women's Boat Race". That took place on the same course but lacked the Oxbridge crews. The previous Oxbridge women's events didn't take place on the traditional Putney to Mortlake course. It is only now that it is all coming together for the women. It remains to be seen how this new event works out and whether it is successful in establishing a new tradition. Andrew D. (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I would make some changes (and already tried once), but I dont want to jump into an edit war or anything. While the first iteration of that race may have been called 'the first women's boat race," it later became the Women's head of river race a completely separate event, which has its own completely seperate article. The Women's Boat Race between Oxford and Cambridge, has (to my knowledge) always been called by this name, while on Henley, even if it's only recently moved to the tideway. I don't see why that specific annual competition wouldnt be the topic of this article. Bosstopher (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, having said what I said, this current article is shambolic, I'll see what I can do to make it more appropriate, considering the significance of this year's Boat Race events. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Resources

• Daily Telegraph about 1927 event. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

1927

We have an article for Women's Boat Race 1927 which states that the race was held "in Oxford" and not necessarily part of the Henley Royal Regatta. Should that be "Oxfordshire" or is Henley incorrect? Clarification required please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The news article in the section above, which is sourced to British rowing, explains the 1927 race was held on the Isis in Oxford. This news article [1] by the same author gives more details about the location among other things in the following years "1929, on the Tideway, and 1930, location unknown.... In 1966.... At this point they were still alternating venues, but when the lightweight men’s race began at Henley-on-Thames in 1975, the women decided to join them." Both refs are already cited in the article so looks like the content needs aligning. Whizz40 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tried to improve the locations, CAM article suggests 1930 may have been on the Tideway in addition to 1929, which is notable as the first to take place there. Whizz40 (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Current champion

Didn't want to start editing in case I don't quite have all the details and politics etc. right, but: the first para says Oxford are the 'current' (as at?) champions, having won by 4 lengths over 2km. It seems to me that refers to the pre-2015 racing. On Sat 11/04/15 the Oxford women's team won by 6 ½ lengths over the full 6.8km tidal course. So whilst it is indeed true that Oxford are the current champions, that statement is backed up by an out of date reference. Or have I missed something?

fixed this. Whizz40 (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

2007

@Whizz40: @Gareth E Kegg: and anyone else: I'm curious about the result of the 2007 race. It shows a winning time of 4 minutes 3 seconds. This cannot have taken place over the standard 2km straight course (unless Cambridge had an inboard motor fitted). It also appears, from other race reports, that this year's result is not considered as the "best ever time" (e.g. see the 2014 race report, to whit: "...winning by a margin of four lengths in a time of 5 minutes and 50 seconds – just six seconds outside The Women’s Boat Race record...."). What happened in 2007? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Aha, fear not, I have already solved the mystery, from CUWBC news: "The decision was made early on by the Presidents and Committee to shorten the course from its usual 2000m to less than 1500m, starting between Upper Thames Rowing Club and Old Blades." The shortened course ought to be noted in the results table on this page, wouldn't you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Some real detective work is required for these races. Great resource there! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, please jump in and make the changes. Whizz40 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

2006

The official website has the wrong time for this year, it should be 5 mins 44 secs, which I'm pleased to see we have correct on our article, but I'm not sure where we sourced it! I've contact theboatraces.org to let them know but I usually get either nothing or a super-defensive reply out of them, so I'm not holding my breath. Mind you, if they took the women's side of things as seriously as they claim they do, they should be thanking me... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The results tables came from the Henley Boat Races article, explained and linked in the edit history of both articles. I'll add a merge template to both talk pages now to clarify. As above, please jump in and make any changes needed. Whizz40 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I've been doing quite of bit of work lately on these articles. My real question I suppose is where, in this article, are all those incorrect results referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, great work. Sources are given below the tables. Both the Boat Race Company website and the Henley Boat Races website list all the results for the Women. Further to the above, looks like the merge template is not needed in this case as it's all covered on Talk and edit histories. Whizz40 (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Well where is 5m 44s referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If parts of the table need correcting or improving then we can do that in the normal way. Current format looks similar to List of The Boat Race results. I'm sure though the format and referencing in the tables on this article can be improved as needed. Whizz40 (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The format is fine, and nothing needs correcting, but the table isn't fully referenced by the two sources as the two sources contain an error which we don't have. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, see your point (having trouble keeping up). Clearly someone has fixed this so we need to find another source, otherwise the edit history of the Henley Boat Races will contain the edit and the editor, but that doesn't really help us. Whizz40 (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, the 5:54 time which both sources give for 2006 is the same as the reserve boat time, so could be a tranpose error from there. Whizz40 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly at least four of The Boat Race times were given in error by the official website (which I suspect is simply mirrored by Henley's site) until I sent them requests for correction... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

CUWBC resource

• CUWBC crew lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Improvements towards GA

Made some improvements to the article, welcome any further edits or suggestions from other editors to move it towards GA. Whizz40 (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help with anything that arises. Would avoid the year-only blue links, they're considered easter egg-ish as they could link to anything related the year. I typically got round that issue by linking "2015 race" rather than just "2015". It may need some prose re-work, but it's better now than later. It may also be belt and braces to state on the talkpage that you have copy/pasted info and sources from other Wikipedia pages, i.e. provide correct attribution for some of your edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated - this article is very much a joint effort. I improved the linking in the article. Apologies that the edit summaries were not linked. For clarity, where the edit summary includes the following notes, some text or cites were copied from the following articles:

WBR 29 & 35: Women's Boat Race 1929, Women's Boat Race 1935

WBR 1973 & 74: Women's Boat Race 1973, Women's Boat Race 1974

WBR 1927: Women's Boat Race 1927

WBR 2011: Women's Boat Race 2011

WBR 2014: Women's Boat Race 2014

TBR 2011: The Boat Race 2011

TBR 2016: The Boat Races 2016

If there are no other suggestions, I will go ahead and nominate the article as improved by Whizz40 including sources and text from The Rambling Man. Whizz40 (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Women's reserves race in 1966 and 1975

Neither http://henleyboatraces.com/results nor http://theboatraces.org/results lists results for 1966 or 1975. Is there a source for them? Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added a ref to the CUWBC history. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action, David. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 00:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Pretty close to an outright pass

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some suggestions below regarding subject/verb agreement (but I'm open to argument)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See below

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images have appropriate licences

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• Link weir
• add or move the last two sentences in the lead about the television viewership and the 2016 race to the main part of the article, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article
• "Cambridge have led Oxford" -> "Cambridge has led Oxford"
• "Oxford rowed over a weir and were banned from the river" -> "Oxford rowed over a weir and was banned from the river"
• "The First VIII receive university blues, and are therefore more commonly known as the Blue Boat" -> "The First VIII receives university blues, and is therefore more commonly known as the Blue Boat"
• "The Second VIII receive university colours" -> "The Second VIII receives university colours"

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the review and the comments Hawkeye. Updates made consistent with these suggestions and some small additional improvements. If there is anything else please let me know. Whizz40 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Annual update

The following parts of the article will need updating with the results (I'll not be at a computer over the weekend):

• Infobox - Update the currency champion, course record (if required) and number of wins
• Lead - update the number of wins in the second paragraph (second sentence), update the final sentence to refer to the 2018 races including updating the 2018 article
• History section - update the number of wins in the penultimate paragraph, add a sentence on the 2018 race to the end of the section
• Results section - update the number of wins and the results table for the Blue Boat and the Reserves

That should cover it all. Whizz40 (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to the races? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that two paragraphs now require references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to get involved and help with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Added references. And updated to 2018. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Integration with The Boat Race

I'd like to suggest that the content of this article is relocated to the main article for The Boat Race. This is primarily because The Boat Race article details the history of the men's race and then gives you a link to this article for the women's race. Given that both races are now on the tideway with equal status, I don't think there's a justification to maintain a separate article for the women's race anymore - there's no reason why the history of both sets of races can't be included in different sections of the same article. I'd be keen to hear others' thoughts on this. Milliepepper (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea, it's a good one. This article is a Good Article while the other is not but that's a technicality. If we integrate the history section into the other article then we may want to turn this article into a List of Women's Boat Race results, corresponding to List of The Boat Race results, which is Featured List. Interested what other editors think? Whizz40 (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think the huge history of the men's race is the primary topic, and the main article is already far too bloated to then include all the good work here. It'll be a bugger's muddle, lose the good article status in one hit and just get trimmed away when I finally get round to making the main article a better summary... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a dilemma between the way readers know the topic today and the way it was for the first 187 years. Readers today are probably more often expecting one article covering the whole topic (with due weight and emphasis) but it has only been that way for 7 years. Prior to then, the sources would see them as separate topics but that likely looks incongruous to most readers today. Whizz40 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think an individual article imparts more gravitas to the women's race. Subsuming it as an abbreviated sub-section of the main article would be detrimental indeed. But you know, I'm just a lone voice. I'm sure a requested merge discussion would be in favour of the merge just from the PC perspective, not worrying too much about how little coverage that would then afford the WBR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree retaining a separate good article is probably the best way to present the WBR topic. Perhaps more of the history from this article could be copied to the other article, at least for now, until it gets improved, while still linking here in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.. Whizz40 (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth, I'm aiming to get the main article to GA later this year, so any help in general, or help in specifically incorporating elements of the WBR there would be great. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)