Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Boat Race 2018/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2018 [1].

The Boat Race 2018[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last few years of Boat Race articles have made it to FA (and every single one of the others are GAs) so I'm following in that tradition and nominating this year's which was the greatest sporting triumph in modern history. Well, Cambridge won all four races... Thanks in advance for anyone who has the time and energy to provide any comments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Sources are all good quality. Several archived are still available, but fn 48 didn't load for me.
  • 63 is an official Facebook page. -okay

Support All looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added an archive link to ref 48. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Three points come to mind having only read the lead and background. Firstly, what do you make of the inconsistency in the naming conventions of these? List of The Boat Race results links to four others that are called "The Boat Races [year]", which makes sense given that more than one race occurred on the same day in each of those, yet this article uses the singular. Are you happy with the title as-is? Secondly, is this article in potential contravention of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license? The article is modeled on the previous Boat Race articles, and it clearly began life as a paste of the relevant information from the 2017 edition, yet there is no attribution in the article history. The 'finished' product we see here has even more similarities to previous years' articles, structurally and with whole swathes of text incorporated unchanged. Now, that's not necessarily a problem; I just wonder if by a strict interpretation of the licence we're not dotting every 'i' here (and I realise that a complicating factor may be that you were likely the original author of much of that text). Thirdly, does the recency of this event give you pause? I mean, it felt like I was in London just yesterday hearing about this ... wait, I literally was in London yesterday hearing about this :-) Is that enough time to ensure 1b is met? The last few articles at least had six months before they reached FA. Do you expect nothing else of note to be written? Steve T • C 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve (a) it's named for its common name, there's no inconsistency, just an adherence to WP:COMMONNAME. (b) Happy to add attribution of the background to the talk page, not a problem at all, although I wrote virtually every character, so it's not really an issue. But for dotting i's and crossing t's I'll do that. (c) No, there's no pause for me right now. As a counterpoint, what do you think is missing? What part of the coverage of this event will percolate in the next week, month, year? Let me know, as I'm keen to keep the article as comprehensive as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve oh, and given you've made fewer than 250 edits in the last two years, are you actually going to come back here and respond to any comments made or is this just a hit-and-run? Just checking, have you given pause to that? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. There'll be no 'hit-and-run'; I'll keep this watchlisted for the duration. Thanks for clarifying the first two points. On the third, to answer your question: I don't know what might be missing, which is why I'm not opposing on that point; I've just never seen anything based on a recent event come to FAC this quickly and wanted your take on it. However, I think it should be something that other reviewers with more familiarity with the topic (and what is likely to be written about it) should consider. Steve T • C 23:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. My advice to you is to look back over the last few Boat Race articles, The Boat Races 2017, The Boat Races 2016 etc which are already featured, and see if you can find anything fundamental missing from the articles. They all conclude pretty much on the day of the races themselves. If something's missing, please let me know. If not, then your concern is not actionable. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve P.S. It may be helpful to understand that I generally used to take these articles to GAN first, but since that process can take an eternity, and since I know how good the articles I write are, I decided to bypass that dreadful wait and go straight to FAC. Perhaps, as an additional aid, you could look at the article histories of the FAs I've noted and see how much changed from the date of the race of the date of FA promotion. And I mean fundamentally changed or where fundamental information was missing, not just tweaks as a result of the review process. Please let me know if you spot anything I haven't. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The GAN queue for sports articles is currently a year long, and the half-life of sports references is notoriously short, so immediate FAC nomination makes a good deal of sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on 1b, further to my comments above and below. I've reviewed a couple of the previous Boat Race FAs and can see that, for example, The Boat Races 2017, though promoted in October 2017, does not contain anything new written more than three days after the event at the beginning of April 2017. Assuming 1b was met in that FAC, this backs up the claim that nothing new of substance is likely to be written on the subject of this race. However, a simple 30-second search reveals evidence of at least some potentially-useful content written well after the 2017 date that may have been relevant there, for example this pair of articles written on April 6 and May 2, respectively. Or this, from July 2, which provides the sorely-missing UK viewing figure data (which, incidentally, won't even have been compiled/released yet by BARB for the 2018 race). My point is, even though I might buy that you've deemed those examples (and that's all they are) irrelevant from an editorial point of view, and while I agree that sporting events such as this leave such a fleeting footprint on the news cycle that we can likely be assured of comprehensiveness after a relatively short period of time (unlike an article on a popular book, perhaps, which likely needs a few years), I don't think two days is enough time to know what might come out about the 2018 race, and possibly means that encyclopedic data (such as viewing figures) is not going to be available. To be clear: I do not believe that GA is a prerequisite for FA but the rush to FAC here is I think unprecedented, and it absolutely gives me pause. Steve T • C 22:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two links are trivia. The third is useful and can be incorporated. But I'm not hanging around for months for the possibility of other news relating to the topic to arise. That's just daft. Thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, the 2017 article went to GAN on or about the day of the race itself and was reviewed four months later, passing with basically no changes. The FAC immediately followed and passed within around a month with basically no changes. This oppose is basically unactionable without withdrawing the nomination and waiting for, how long? Six months? Sorry, but I think that's bordering on nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other, minor point I wanted to ask you about without cluttering the above: do you think it's a little odd that—owing to the fact that much of this article has been taken from the previous years'—there are a bunch of citations with 'retrieved by' dates that pre-date this article's creation? The accessdate parameter is supposed to be the date when the content pointed to by the url was last verified to support the text in the article. Some of these still say 2014. Is that really the last time some of these sources were verified? Steve T • C 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As predicted, this commentary from Steve is a hit-and-run. What a shame we couldn't actually work on making the article better, but apparently it's nothing to do with that, it's about the fact that the event itself took place a week or so ago, despite the prelude starting months and months ago, and nothing realistic being offered in favour of the "1b" oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I have this watchlisted, and have checked in every day. If I have not responded, it is 1) because I have spent actual hours researching this race, much of which I was witness to, 2) because I have gone back and forth about six times on whether I should strike my 'oppose', 3) because an article at FAC is likely to stay in the list for several weeks, and 4) because I have spent most of my free time these last few days with my family, owing to the fact that this is Easter weekend. I do not appreciate the bad-faith assumption of a hit-and-run review. As anyone who remembers my contributions here will attest, I am and always have been a conscientious FAC reviewer. I am not surprised that FAC reviews have dried up the last few years when at every turn my concerns about this article have been minimised and treated with condescension. Your first reply, before my 'oppose' and when I was simply raising a concern, was to make immediate reference to the fact that I had only made 250 edits in two years, despite the fact that most of those were major rewrites as a result of weeks of research—and actual money spent—to save someone else's Featured Article that had been listed at FAR. Your combative attitude is one which I imagine most editors will find off-putting to a degree where they will opt to avoid reviewing articles for fear of having their contributions scrutinised and used against them, rather than as an opportunity to improve the article in question. To address the substance of your complaint, 1) the FAC coordinators will make their own decision on whether or not my 'oppose' (should I decide not to strike it) is actionable, and 2) I understand that the article was started months ago, but to give you an insight into my viewpoint, over at WP:FILM we start film articles when principal photography begins, but there is often—always even—major content written months or years after the film's release; we would never dream of listing a film at FAC that had been released only a few days beforehand. I see that Boat Race articles are almost certainly different owing to the news cycle, but it's that potential for extra content that gives me pause. It may be that your stance is correct, but I urge you not to immediately confront reviewers who disagree with that viewpoint. I will be back this way to reassess, but at my own pace and backgrounded by my extensive experience with FAC reviews. Good day. Steve T • C 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so you're sticking with an inactionable oppose. You've yet to offer any substantive content that is missing from any Boat Race article, so this is all very unhelpful, despite your self-proclaimed "extensive experience", how do you think that benefits anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm considering it and reconsidering it; as explained above, I've gone back and forth several times on whether to strike my oppose, and have attempted at every turn to ignore the condescending tone of your responses (even before my 'oppose') and focus instead on their substance. I have already conceded that this may well be an unusual circumstance in which nothing new of note is ever written about an event mere days after it occurs; films, elections, TV, literature, meteorology, music and most other sporting events require much longer to percolate through the cultural consciousness. I am unaware of any other article on Wikipedia that has been seriously considered for promotion to FA only days after the event they are about has occurred; even if I strike my oppose and this is promoted uncontested, this will still be precedent-setting, and that reason alone should justify some hesitation in reaching a decision. Steve T • C 09:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you've made your point but there's no actual evidence to support your position, or at least none that you've provided. And that's a shame because it just means that you're providing an oppose that can't be actioned apart from withdrawing the nomination and waiting some arbitrary time during which nothing will happen. This isn't "precedent-setting", this is approaching a very stable topic with the application of common sense. What is unusual is that I produce such high quality material so rapidly after an event has taken place. I have very extensive experience in this field, as evidenced by the 150+ GAs and half a dozen FAs on this very topic. And mark my words, if I discovered something vital was missing from any one of the 164 articles, I'd be the first person to add it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose struck. If I get the opportunity, I'll read through again to see if I have any suggestions. If not, good luck. Steve T • C 20:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am very familiar with The Rambling Man's Boat Race articles, and this one is well up to his customary high standard. Meets all FA criteria in my view. Glad to add my support. (And extra points for being so quick off the mark. V. impressive.) Tim riley talk 11:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MWright96
  • Alt text for all images would be of benefit to those who have image dsscriptions turned on
  • "including SuperSport across Africa and EBU across Europe." - If I'm mistaken, EBU is referred to as "the EBU"
  • "The Championship Course along which, for the third time in the history of the event, the men's, women's and both reserves' races will be conducted on the same day" - was conducted
  • "led by their chief coach Steve Trapmore. Trapmore, a gold medal-winning member of the men's eight at the 2000 Summer Olympics," - Try not to have the last word of a sentence start the next one like this.
  • "Both CUWBC president Daphne Martschenko and rower Paula Wesselmann were unavailable " - Why were Martschenko and Wesselman absent?
  • "The Dark Blues feature one returning crew member" - featured
  • "The Light Blues also feature the 2015 World Rowing Championships quad sculls gold medallist Olivia Coffey." - same as above.
  • "The Cambridge crew includes a number of experienced Boat Race rowers:" - included
  • "will be the tallest individual ever to have competed in The Boat Race." - was the tallest individual to have competed in the history of The Boat Race.
  • "Cambridge's crew contains four individuals who have featured in the Boat Race:" - contained

Apart from the issues raised above, I believe this piece of work to be quite neatly put together by TRM. MWright96 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MWright96 thanks for your comments. I've addressed them all, the only one which wasn't simple was the absence of Martschenko and Wesselmann. I know the former was ill, there's no information on the latter and in other sources Wesselmenn's absence isn't even noted, so I removed that. Hopefully all addressed to your satisfaction, please let me know. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my concerns have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim[edit]

Apart from a couple of infelicities already listed by MWright above, I could see nothing of concern. They appear to be uncontentious and easily fixed, so happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimfbleak. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Boat_Race_2018/archive1&oldid=1138472950"