# Talk:The Boat Race 1956

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Boat Race 1956/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just one more... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

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

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Initial comments
The lead summarises the article, despite being short, but as with most Boat Race GAs it's best to keep it this way without becoming repititive
"C. B. M. Lloyd (three-time Blue between 1949 and 1951)" - which shade of Blue?
Is there any information on what team H. R. N. Rickett rowed for? - nevermind, just found out he rowed for Cambridge!
"Although the Dark Blues were on the outside of the long bend in the river, they kept in touch, and preventing Cambridge from extending their lead" - would it make more sense without the 'and'?


#### References
References are fine and all formatted, meeting the GA criteria


### On hold
Sorry for the wait with this one. That's all I could find with this Boat Race - just some minor prose questions. Shortest review I've ever done, I was thinking of even withrawing this one from my submissions in the GA Cup due it being so short! But as with all of the other Boat Races it is comprehensive and I believe it is well written. I'll leave this on hold for you ☯ Jaguar ☯ 13:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries, no problem with the wait at all.  I appreciate your interest and ongoing support.  I've addressed the two issues you noted above that I think you wanted fixed, let me know if there's anything else you need from me.  Thanks again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and no problem, this looks ready to be promoted now  ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)