Talk:The Boat Race 1982

The Boat Race 1982 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 21, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Boat Race 1982 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Rowing

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.RowingWikipedia:WikiProject RowingTemplate:WikiProject Rowingrowing articles

To-do list:

Featured Articles:

Raise the rowing (sport) article to featured status.
1. Get article relisted to 'good article status'
2. Put through another round of peer review, see here
3. Nominate for featured status
Ditto for Henley Royal Regatta, The Boat Race , Steve Redgrave

Stubs: see here..

Tag {{Rowing-stub}} onto all rowing stub articles so we can keep track of them.
Expand stubs to at least start class.

Image requests: see here..
Article requests: see here..

Write bios for World Rowing champions (see the redlinks in the templates)

Document FISA database errors

University of Cambridge

This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge Wikiproject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

River Thames (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Boat Race 1982/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 12:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will start review later today.--Dom497 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

"In the reserve race, Isis beat Goldie..." - Probably better to put this, "In the reserve race, Oxford's Isis beat Cambridge's Goldie" given that it is the first time Isis/Goldie are mentioned. Then, in the "Background" section, if you want, you can change, "The reserve race, contested between Oxford's Isis boat and Cambridge's Goldie boat has been held since 1965." to "The reserve race, contested between Isis and Goldie has been held since 1965." for the sack of repetition.--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done, but kept the later text the same, it's fine to repeat details from the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Oxford crew weighed an average of just below 14 st per rower..." - Use the Convert template for 14 st to lb (pounds).
Added conversion, not necessarily using the template, but the same result. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the same sentence mentioned above, use the same units. (Oxford is going from st to lb (after you add the convert template) while Cambridge is going lb to kg).
I don't get it. It's always Imperial (metric)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Oxford's crew also contained the Clay twins, Robert and Hugh." - I'm not a fan of single sentence paragraphs. :)
Merged. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the crew table, use the Convert template (and make sure units that are being converted are the same throughout the entire article; per my 2nd point).
I will if you show me how to use the convert template to go from stones and pounds to kilos. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the table, I confused myself of what a "stone" is.--Dom497 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will complete the review soon!--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, responded above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions[edit]

Most of my points right now are about the conversions so I figured I shgould just merge everything here. All I'm trying to say is to convert to and from the same units. For example, in the "Crews" section, at one point you are converting st to kg and at another point you are converting lb to kg. It should either be st to kg or lb to kg for BOTH. Then, in the table....wait a sec. Never mind about the table!--Dom497 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree. It doesn't make sense when talking about a few pounds converted to kg to make it some decimal fraction of stones. Moreover, the original sources use stones and pounds, and pounds. I only convert them out of courtesy to the non-Imperial readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a second thought a agree that we should avoid the decimals.--Dom497 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2[edit]

"The umpire for the race was Michael Muir-Smith,[11] and conditions were calm: Jim Railton of The Times described the course as "a smooth and flat Queen's highway from Putney to Mortlake." - This sentence reads awkward. In the first part you go from the umpire to the conditions (what do the two have to do with each other?). I think, "The umpire for the race was Michael Muir-Smith." can stand as its own sentence. Then you can say, "Conditions on the race day were calm and Jim Railton...".--Dom497 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Oxford were clear pre-race favourites." - Why/How were they clear favourites?--Dom497 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Used direct phrase from source. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...and passing the Mile Post a second..." - Do you mean "one second" or something else?--Dom497 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean "one second". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...barely a second apart..." - This is me being extremely picky but is "barely" a neutral word? Maybe you can just say "under one second"?
Ok, did add some flavour to the prose, but removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...Oxford quickly gaining a length's lead..." - I don't think the apostrophe should be there.--Dom497 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be there. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...and a clear water advantage." - What does this mean?
The boats had clear water between them, so the boat in the lead had a clear water advantage. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"18 minutes 21 seconds" - Again, me being picky but should there be an "and" in the middle. I don't know what the proper way is. Just wanted to bring it up so I know for the future.--Dom497 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's horses for courses. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"18 minutes, 43 seconds" - Now you have a comma in the middle. What's the right way?????? :) --Dom497 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"we will have six of this crew next year ... that's a good base" - Did YOU split what he said (as in you cut out a part of what he said). If so, it should be [...] not just ... .--Dom497 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The rivalry is a major point of honour between the two universities and followed throughout the United Kingdom and broadcast worldwide." - We're talking about 1982 here. Was THIS race broadcast worldwide? If not, I think it would be better to say, "Today, the rivalry...". But even that is a bit ify because were supposed to be talking about the background of the race, not what happens(ed) after. Right?--Dom497 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I think something like this is fine to put the race into both historical and contemporary context. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, responses inline above. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PASS!--Dom497 (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]