Talk:The Boat Race 2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleThe Boat Race 2012 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, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2014Good article nomineeListed
July 16, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
August 23, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

More sources[edit]

Pre-race[edit]

  • "Henley Boat Races 2012 race reports". Cambridge University Women's Boat Club. 31 March 2012.
  • "The Boat Race 2012: Cambridge outweigh rivals Oxford". BBC Sport. 5 March 2012.
  • "Official 158th Boat Race crews announced today". theboatrace.org.
  • "Crews announced for trial eights test". theboatrace.org.

Race[edit]

Reaction[edit]

Trenton[edit]

Images[edit]

Profiles[edit]

Cantab[edit]

Oxon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the review of a good article nomination. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Dom497 (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Boat Race 2012/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 9 June 2014 (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:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  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:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass! Great job!--Dom497 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments[edit]

  • "The 158th Boat Race took place on 7 April 2012 and was won by Cambridge" - I think it would be better to put "was won by the University of Cambridge" as you are just introducing the topic and it isn't clear what Cambridge is. I know that if someone reads the main article first, they would understand, but for people who just stumbled upon this page, that wouldn't be the case.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the lead needs to be expanded a bit more to cover all the sections in the article.
    Tried a bit, can you suggest anything else you'd like to see? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Despite having the heavier crew, Oxford were pre-race favourites having had a successful The race was halted..." - Incomplete sentence.--Dom497 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Got distracted, pressed save. Mea culpa. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The trials crews..." - Call me out on this one if I'm wrong, but shouldn't it be "trial" without the 's'.
    Well that's a curious one. They are crews who take place in trials. It seems natural to me, but I can see that it may not be for the reader, so I'll remove the "s" for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all the boatrace.org refs, the publisher is actually: Boat Race Company Ltd. Publishing dates are also needed.
    Done, a little bit disappointed in myself that I didn't have those publication dates. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The official crews were announced and the weigh-in held on 5 March 2012..." - Doesn't flow well when I read it. Maybe something like, "The official crews were announced and weighed-in on 5 March..."?
    Should be "The official crews were announced at the weigh-in, held ..." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Blue crew, downplayed the disparity: "It’s a big difference but it’s a very long race and you have to have the power to carry that weight down the course"." - "the disparity, "It’s..." (change to comma)
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is kinda optional as this is just me being picky: "The women's race, the 66th meeting of Cambridge University Women's Boat Club and Oxford University Women's Boat Club..." - Maybe take out "The women's race...". Not really needed given that the sub-section title says just that.
    I'm not sure, the section is about both the women's and reserve's race, so I'll leave it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, now that I think of it, why is there no background info about the women?--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the Women's Boat Race has its own article, albeit crap. The race is noted here, just as it's noted in broadcasts covering the Boat Race. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is ref 11 reliable? There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the person who wrote the article is credible.
    It is published by the Women's Boat Club so I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the report, particularly as it's being used in a non-controversial manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a reverse race?
    I don't know, why do you ask? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I have no idea what it is and if I don't know it, a reader doesn't have context of the topic probably wouldn't either. Even if there is an article that you can just link to.--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point me to where it says "reverse race"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The sub-section is named "Women's and reverses" and, "The reserve race, between Oxford's Isis and Cambridge's..."--Dom497 (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not seeing that, I'm seeing "Women's and reserves". I don't know what more I can do if I can't see the word "reverses", perhaps you could adjust it if you can find it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Second paragraph under 'Women's and reserves' sub-section. "The reserve race, between Oxford's Isis and Cambridge's Goldie, was held thirty minutes before the main race, at 1.45pm.[12]"--Dom497 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you mean "reserve"? You've continually mentioned "reverse" and it's totally confused me. If you want a link to Reserve team then fine, otherwise I'm still not getting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, biggest fail of my life...--Dom497 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It happens. No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...was held thirty minutes before the main race, at 1.45pm on 7 April 2012" - Seems kinda excessive (aka, not needed).
    I took the date out but left the time to keep context. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the previous record? Just say something like, "a record time of 16 minutes 41 seconds, five lengths ahead of Cambridge (____ seconds faster than the previous record), five..."
    I think I get it, added something but not repeated "record" so quickly... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...commenced at 2:15pm, with conditions overcast and drizzly, and a light wind..." - Again, seems a bit excessive. And "drizzly" isn't the most neutral term.
    I disagree I'm afraid, it's important for boat race articles to have some idea of the conditions of the race, it adds context to the events and to the times. (FWIW I replaced drizzly with "light rain"). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'They almost took his head off,' said Sergeant Chris Tranter of the Metropolitan Police" - This defiantly can be removed.
    Why? It's a clear description of how close the crews came to killing Oldfield. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "...and narrowly avoided being struck" - IMO, this gets the same message as the quote across to the reader.--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that'd be OR, I'm quoting the gentleman who gave a report stating how closely the idiot was to being decapitated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, the quote is in the reference so as long as you keep the reference, it is not OR.--Dom497 (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, a shame to lose some nice descriptive text, but as you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I was thinking about it today and I was kinda comparing this article to the ones I write. In my roller coaster articles I include quotes in the "Reception" section. In this articles it seems fit to assume that the "Reaction" section is the equivalent of the "Reception". With that, I've added the quote back. Sorry.--Dom497 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a huge fan of all these quotes that don't seem to add any value to the article....quote from Garrett can go, quote from Nelson can go, quote from Trapmore can go.
    Again, this is all for context and reaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Believe it or not, I'm fine with the quotes in the Oldfield section! Just that I think the "he said" should be removed as it's not needed, "Oldfield tweeted the day after the race, he said".
    Yes, that was odd, removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your detailed and insightful comments. I've implemented most of the changes you suggest, some I disagree with so have left as is. If they're deal breakers for you then I guess you can go ahead and fail the nomination. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Left some replies to your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dom497: Thanks, I've responded accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Two more replies.--Dom497 (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dom497: Thanks, once again I've responded/adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Two more! :P --Dom497 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dom497: have responded to the one that still appeared to need action. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Orphaned references in The Boat Race 2012[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Boat Race 2012's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "results":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aligned. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated peer review comments[edit]

I read this when it was at PR and never got around to making comments. Here are a couple of initial notes; I'll add to this as I go through the article.

  • I think the lead should be a trifle longer. Perhaps a sentence about the race itself before mentioning Trenton Oldfield; currently the lead jumps from saying Oxford were pre-race favourites to mentioning the race was halted. How about: "Cambridge won the toss and chose to start on the Surrey side of the river. Partway through the race, with the boats level, ..."
    You didn't comment on this one -- not sure if you missed this. I still think this would be a helpful change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't miss it, and I agreed with your comments. Following some PR comments from Ruhrfisch, it's been a little reworked, perhaps it'll suffice? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The extra material in the lead certainly helps. I do still think it's a little odd for the lead to jump from a sentence about preparation to a sentence about the race being halted. I think adding the sentence-and-a-half I suggested above (or something similar) would help the flow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think the lead should mention that an Oxford rower lost his blade; it seems to have had a major influence on the outcome and so should be covered in the lead.
  • Can we link "Tideway" in the reserve race description?
  • "The Boat Race is a side-by-side rowing competition between the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. First held in 1829, the competition is a 4.2 miles (6.8 km) race along The Championship Course on the River Thames in southwest London." The race has occasionally used different courses, and I don't think this sentence should imply otherwise. I'd also like to avoid the repetition of "competition", if possible. How about "The Boat Race is a side-by-side rowing competition between the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge, first held in 1829. For most of race's history it has been held on the 4.2 mile (6.8 km) Championship Course on the River Thames in southwest London" with perhaps a note after the second sentence giving the years in which other courses were used?
    • Have removed the repeat of competition, but loathe to add footnotes to every one of these to part-describe the other places that the race has taken place, I'll leave that to the main article (which will be an effort to fix up, but ....) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Um, yes, a hundred-odd identical footnotes does seem a bit much. I still don't like the implication that the course is the same, though. I understand that your phrasing doesn't actually assert that, but "is a ... rowing competition ... held on the Championship Course" does imply it. What do you of adding some phrase such as "now held", or "held, for most of the race's history"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I added "currently" to ensure that accurate and knowledgeable readers wouldn't be upset! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the first time in Cambridge's Boat Race history, their boat featured just one British oarsman, Mike Thorp, who, along with David Nelson and Oxford's Karl Hudspith, were the only rowers who had featured in the 2011 race" I had to read this a couple of times, and cross-refer to the table, before I realized that the coxswain is not counted as an oarsman. (Duh.) I'm not a rowing aficionado, but then many other readers won't be either, so perhaps this can be made clearer. How about: "For the first time in Cambridge's Boat Race history, their boat featured just one British oarsman, Mike Thorp; the cox, David Nelson, was also British. These two, along with Oxford's Karl Hudspith, were the only rowers who had featured in the 2011 race."?
    • Re-read it myself, and found it confusing but not for the same reasons. Have re-phrased to accommodate your concerns and my issues... I think! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have the source for the table attached to the word "Source:"; I think I can guess why you did that, but I don't think it's necessary. I think you could add the ref after the "P = President" note.
    • I think it'll cause more trouble than it's worth. Most FAC people tend to ignore tables in any case, too complex for their prose-esque minds. Plus sometimes I have to use sources exclusively to reference the presidents. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. I don't really like it, but I must say I can't suggest a better option, so let's see what happens. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "himself part of the successful and lighter 2011 Dark Blue crew": do you mean lighter than the 2012 Dark Blues, or lighter than the 2011 Cambridge crew? I would assume it's the latter but it should be clearer.
  • "Barn Elms" is mentioned in the text but not shown on the map. If it's not going to be added to the map, a phrase of description should be added that either relates it to the map or gives a distance: e.g. "just past Fulham Football Club".
  • "Despite rating higher and taking an early lead, Goldie was caught by Isis at Barn Elms, and held a half-length lead by the Mile Post": as written this means Goldie held a lead by the Mile Post, but that doesn't seem to match the next sentence, in which Oxford is said to extend their lead.
    • THINK I've fixed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but "extending their lead to over a length by Hammersmith Bridge" is a parenthetical comment so should strictly have a comma before "extending" too. That would give you a comma on both sides of "and", which I would be OK with but which some people might see as comma-itis; you could leave it that way or rephrase if you don't like it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Attempted a reword. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continued to pull further away": you don't need both "continued" and "further"; I'd cut "further".
  • "It was the first time the race had been stopped since 2001": this makes it sound as if it had been stopped at least a few times, whereas it appears this was only the second time. How about: "This was only the second time the race had been stopped", perhaps with a note outlining the previous incident.
  • "Oxford cox Zoe de Toledo made a request that the race be re-rowed as a result of the broken oar": this is the first mention of a broken oar; earlier it just says that Wienhausen lost his blade. If that's because it was broken I would suggest saying so at first mention of the incident.
    • Bah, boatie thing I suppose, oar/blade all the same. Have re-jigged a little. The Rambling Man (talk)
      I didn't know that blade was used to refer to the entire oar, but that wasn't my point. It seems that you're using "lost his blade" to mean "lost the use of his blade" because it was damaged. On first reading I took it to mean "dropped the blade in the water". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually he did lose half (or thereabouts) of his blade. Hopefully between the updated lead ("... suffered irreparable damage to his blade following ...") and the slight rewording in the main part of the article, this is covered now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not completely convinced that "lost his blade" in the main text won't mislead other readers as it did me, but you've made it clear in the lead, and I've now read over it too many times to be sure. I've struck this comment; let's see what folks say at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. The article is in good shape; just a couple of niggles. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Mike Christie, your time and efforts much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Struck most comments above; added a couple of notes in one or two places. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, sorry I missed your responses, which I've hopefully now addressed. FAC is live, baton down the hatches....! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One minor point left unstruck above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Congratulations![edit]

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind, as one of the main authors I very much appreciate your feedback! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanno Wienhausen's seat[edit]

The Main race section reads "...Oxford's number six, Hanno Wienhausen..." yet the table in the Crews section places Wienhausen in seat four. Is that an error? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be four. Thanks, and fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Crew Order[edit]

The Cambridge crew order is wrong. It was: Garratt, Sharp, Dudek, Thorp, Ross, Lindeman , Schramm, Nelson. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvW0j5Ua6cI 20s in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:470:9400:F120:E394:F60:66FE (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Boat Race 2012. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Boat_Race_2012&oldid=1206862917"