# Talk:The Boat Race 2005

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Boat Race 2005/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 14:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up too: again, it may be a day or so before I get going. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've put this page on watchlist so I don't miss it!  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Overall
Again, nicely put together, and close to GA as it stands. I've made a couple of very small tweaks: nothing too much.
Lead

A little on the brief side, but it's a short article, and it seems pointless to repeat the who article in the lead!
I'll see what I can do.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
"The race, umpired by six-time Boat…" Worth linking "umpired"?
Done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Crews

"Oxford coach Dan Topolski rated both crews as "good enough to make an Olympic final".": this looks like it's a direct quote from Topolski, but the source doesn't seem to suggest it is.
Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Race description

"Oxford out-rated Cambridge": it may be worth a footnote to explain what "out-rated" means, for those who may not know.
Linked to our glossary.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
No dab or dead links, refs are solid.
Again, minor pickings from me, and no deal-breakers again, just a little tweak here and there. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thanks again, you're a gent.  Have responded and updated accordingly, hopefully by the time you're back I'll have made the lead a bit fatter.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Excellent: all good and happy to pass here.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Y

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Y

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Y

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Y

C. No original research: Y

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Y

B. Focused: Y

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: Y

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: Y

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: Y

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Y

Overall:
Pass or Fail: All good: I am happy to  Pass – SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)