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 (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2014 [1].

The Boat Race 2012[edit]

The Boat Race 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, earlier this year, ThaddeusB created an article about this year's "edition" of The Boat Race and managed to get it into the In The News section. Encouraged by this and passively goaded by Bencherlite, I've set about trying to create well written and well referenced articles about every running of this peculiarity of amateur sports held annually since 1829. This race, probably the most controversial of modern times, seemed like a good place to start. It's been through GAN and PR, so now it's here. Thanks to all who take the time to comment. And thanks to Mike Christie, Ruhrfisch and Dom497 for the various reviews that have got me at least this far... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I spot checked a couple of sources and found no cause for concern. I reviewed this at PR and I think it's in good shape. A suggestion: how about including Hudspith's comment that the Oxford team "went through seven months of hell, this was the culmination of their careers, and [Oldfield] took it away from them"? The Telegraph and Guardian articles both quote it and it would go well alongside the quote from Zeng. Just a thought. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, and thanks again for your help in the PR leading up to this. I've implemented your suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Checked most sources and and all is good. Nice article. NickGibson3900 (Talk - Cont.) 06:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I've reviewed a few of the races at GA, although not this one, and I'm happy to see one of them come up at FAC. Nicely put together, it covers all the points I would expect, and does so well and succinctly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this in PR and found some more free photos for the article on Flickr. The only change I can see on a re-read is to move the link for the Goldie boat to the first mention (up a section). Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EddieHugh

To me, that neglects criterion 1b: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". It's also confusing for readers with no background knowledge, as which of three races described is being referred to at various points in the article is not made explicit. (A further omission is that there were, in fact, four races, as there was a reserve race for women, too. Being particularly pedantic, there were six races, including the lightweight women's and lightweight men's races. Again, if the article is about "The Boat Race", then only one needs to be mentioned; if it's about all of them, then all should be mentioned and relevant information supplied. The current situation is confusing for the most important person – the reader. A possible solution is to re-structure, putting the main race and all its info first, then 'other races' or similar in a separate section, and then making explicit in the opening line that the article is about more than one rowing race.) EddieHugh (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The reserve/women's race is put in context from the background section. Of course, there were the minor lightweights and women's reserve races, but they are seldom, if ever reported upon. I could excise all mention of the reserves/women's race if that would alleviate confusion, but that'd be a bit of a shame, deliberately removing information which is delineated by the use of "women's" and "reserves". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick comment, since I supported above. I see EddieHugh's point, but I don't like the proposed solution, and to be honest I don't see an alternative article structure as fixing the issue. Almost all readers are going to search for this article because they're interested in the main boat race. Even if there's enough information on the subsidiary races for them to be notable in their own right, I think they'd end up being merged into this article. The title of this article should reflect the primary topic of the article, so I don't think those races should be mentioned in the title. Perhaps a couple of redirects could be created from e.g. "Women's boat race 2012", if there's a standard name that readers might search for. Overall, I think the article deals with the issue as well as it can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Respone to EddieHugh - Featured Articles have to be comprehensive, but they also have to follow published sources and policies such as Neutral Point of view, which includes WP:WEIGHT, which says in part "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The 2012 Boat Race was an oddball with the swimmer stopping the race, so I looked at 2011 and 2013 coverage by the BBC: 2011 race and 2013 race. Each news article focuses on the main race, and mentions members of each team (2011 lists both teams in full, 2013 does not), while also briefly mentioning which university won the women's and reserve races. So this article follows the model of reliable news sources and NPOV (and the WP:MOS). I will also mention that the first sentence cannot have everything in it (though the lead should summarize the article as a whole) - please see WP:LEADSENTENCE. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. WP:NPOV is really about controversial topics; more generally, it's about views. WP:WEIGHT is also about neutrality of views. There aren't many views in the article: perhaps only what Cam and Ox people said about the race and comments by and about Oldfield. Which races were held is not a view, it's a question of fact: "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" applies to viewpoints expressed in the article. Listing, for instance, the women's crews would not be giving undue prominence to a viewpoint (what would the viewpoint be?); it would be giving readers (neutral) information. Not mentioning, for instance, that there was a reserve women's race will lead the reader to conclude erroneously that there wasn't one. Surely what the reader takes away is more important than whether the article is representative of the quantity of information provided by the mainstream media?
Let me try again on the structure... here's the article's structure, with the terms used in each part:
  • Lead. The Boat Race.
the reserve race.
the Women's Boat Race.
  • Background. The Boat Race.
the Women's Boat Race.
the reserve race.
  • Crews. (not stated, but The Boat Race)
  • Races. the Women's Boat Race.
the reserve race.
(not stated, but The Boat Race, now named "the main race")
  • Reaction (not stated, but The Boat Race, now named "the race")

'It's not optimal' is my summary. EddieHugh (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But every mention of the other races is either in its own section with a header relating to women's or reserves, or explicitly referred to as such, all other instances (and you can refer to the same thing a number of ways), relate to the Boat Race. I don't see a problem. And just because something isn't mentioned in an article, it doesn't imply that it doesn't exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a problem understanding because we have enough background knowledge to allow filters to work automatically (e.g., "the race" = "the boat race" = the men's one; it's easily the most important, so "Crews" is about only that one); my concern is for people who don't have that knowledge. Mentioning the men's boat race, men's reserve race and women's boat race, but not the women's reserve race, runs the risk of people inferring that the last of those did not exist, I suggest. EddieHugh (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if the women's reserve race exists and can be sourced, it should be mentioned -- I certainly hadn't realized it existed, and as EddieHugh suggests, I actually assumed it did not exist because it wasn't mentioned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with mentioning the women's reserve race (assume it would be maybe one sentence). I will point out that the women's races were held on a different day and on a different and shorter course, and that there can be up to SIX other races held with the Women's Boat Race - see Henley_Boat_Races#Events. I do not think all six other races need to be mentioned here - I think WP:WEIGHT applies when it says in part "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget this is an instance of a prominent race, whose result is widely publicised alongside the reserve race (usually a paragraph) and the women's race (usually a sentence). There are other races that exist between the universities, they are not covered here either. We have a main article to cover the panoply of other aspects of the annual event. I could list all the events that happened throughout the year in rowing that featured both crews, but none are particularly notable beyond the three I have already included in this article. As I said from the outset, the best I could offer would be to remove all mention of the reserve and women's race which, I believe, would be to the detriment of the article, so that's not going to happen. So, an impasse. If that results in the unsuccessful closure of the nomination, so be it. I'd rather not get the article "featured" if it doesn't make an attempt to mirror the high quality mainstream resources that have covered the race since 1829 and the other minor races since the 1960s. Thanks for your time, in particular the reviewers at GAN, PR and here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the current structure really clearer than the following possibility?
  • Lead. The Boat Race.
the reserve race.
the Women's Boat Race.
  • The Boat Race. Background. Crews. Race. Reaction
  • The reserve race. (probably 1 or 2 paras covering just background & race if you wish to omit crews)
  • The Women's Boat Race. Background. Race. (probably no more if you wish to omit crews)

This separation of main race and others is, incidentally, very similar to the structure of the main article you mentioned. If you think that the current structure is better, please answer:

Why is it better (for the reader)?
It's chronological. If you prefer to remove all mentions of the other races, please suggest that explicitly. It will then not exist in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological? The women's race (1) was on an earlier date (not mentioned in the infobox, adding to potential confusion); the reserve (2) was next, then the main (3). The current article structure, using those numbers, is: Lead 321; Background 312; Crews 3; Races 123; Reaction 3. My proposed structure would be chronological: 321! EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously mean chronological for each race. As I said, if you'd prefer to remove it all rather tag it awkwardly at the end, then that's a solution, but not one I'll be following up. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is the unknowledgeable reader to know that the "Crews" section is about the main race?
Because all other races are explicitly tagged with "reserve" or "women's". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the other race is named "The Boat Race" in the lead and background, but given no name in Crews. Anyway, this is a symptom of the overall article structure. EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, there's no confusion unless you're applying a forensic examination of the semantics of the article. If you have specific issues with confusion in specific sentences, I'll be happy to fix them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
e.g., "4.2 miles (6.8 km) Championship Course" (should be hyphenated and singular); "the race currently takes place" ("currently" is time dependent, so shouldn't be used); "However, Cambridge held the overall lead, with 80 victories to Oxford's 77.[5]" (80–77 is not in that source and contradicts the infobox numbers). And so on, but this is just detail, as I mention below. EddieHugh (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, are you going to look at the "and so on" now please so I can address the other specific issues with the article? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, based on criterion 1a, with a question mark against 1b and 1c. As I mentioned in my first post, doing a more detailed review would come after making larger changes. I haven't managed to bring about those changes and haven't been convinced that the current version is optimal for readers either, so, from my perspective, sorting out the small things is not what's required and would inevitably clash at some point with the structure/content, so couldn't be done satisfactorily anyway. More detailed reasons for my decision to oppose are on various parts of this page. EddieHugh (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A shame you seem prepared to allow factual errors to go uncommented however, but I understand that if you if can't have the changes you alone want to the structure, you're unprepared to help with the rest of the process. Nevertheless, thanks for your contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is the unknowledgeable reader to know that the "Reaction" section is about the main race? EddieHugh (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because all other races are explicitly tagged with "reserve" or "women's". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the main article has, in no way, any accreditation from me. It's something I may choose to work on improving in due course. It is, however, the place where generic information about the races should be contained. Its structure may, or may not, be similar to this article, if it is, it's a coincidence. If not, well, meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention, thanks for your interest and comments on this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I see that you've put in a huge amount of effort into Boat Race articles and assume (plus hope) that you'll continue to do so. I'm not being difficult for the sake of it – I'd like to see the articles be as good as they can be, with the reader at the centre (all of the details of text formatting that tend to be concentrated on here are technical details, really), hence my stressing of the overall structure (the level of detail is more a matter of opinion/policy, so I happily give way on that). I also recommend consulting some more specialist sources to provide more detail and accuracy. Here's one race report, for instance, which offers both. EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Detail and accuracy" with regard to what? If you're suggesting I could "rephrase" the source into the race section, sure, I'm happy to add more detail, although you're the only person claiming issues with "accuracy". Can you be more specific with any lack of "accuracy" you've alluded to in the article please, I'll certainly be looking into fixing that, considering variety of RS I've already used. You have confused me since you say "the level of detail is more a matter of opinion ..." then "I also recommend ... to provide more detail...". Mixed signals. Confusing. Mind you, any article claiming "accuracy" which capitalises the toss has lost my faith from the word go... and phrases like "appeared in the water ... immediately spotted" makes matters worse. Moreover, as well as changing tense at will, it completely overlooks the fact that Pinsent had to alert the umpire, but hey, which article is more accurate and detailed than the other? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Level of detail about the other races (opinion/policy) vs level of detail about the main one. Accuracy (coupled to detail)... e.g., "their coxswain Zoe de Toledo had steered too close to Cambridge and despite more warnings from the umpire there was a serious clash of oars" against "the crews drifted together". There are also specialist rowing magazines that may offer perspectives different from the mainstream UK media. EddieHugh (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and it will be impossible from an observer's perspective to easily determine whether a boat "drifted" towards another (unlikely) or was steered towards another (likely). The only way would have been to talk to the cox after the event to determine whether the boat moved autonomously or whether she steered it that way. I'm not sure how you would proceed, by writing all the possible intricate occurrences giving each possibility for each event being reported on, or reduce to it what was simply observable from television or the river bank. I've tried to steer a line between both. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being BOLD, I added the six-word sentence "Oxford won the women's reserve race." to the end of the paragraph on the Women's race. This is already in the cited source (so no new ref was needed). I do not think it significant enough to be included in the lead, and hope this resolves the dispute and allows this fine article to earn its well deserved FA star. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Late-to-the-party support (from the perspective of a Dark Blue to counterbalance TRM's Light Blue stance - and the perspective of someone who shared a flat for a year with one grad student who trained all year only to come 9th in the selection of 8 rowers for Isis...) The Ruhrfisch compromise is the way forward - frankly, very few even within Oxbridge (let along outside - family members excepted!) care about the result of the lightweights races or the reserve women's crews' race; the Isis—Goldie race gets a smidgen of coverage because it's the curtain-raiser to the main event; and so this article gives appropriate coverage. The only question for the hard-working TRM is whether there's anything in sources about whether security for the Olympics was enhanced in the light of the Oldfield incident. BencherliteTalk 14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Closing comment -- Although there's still an outstanding objection, I think reasonable efforts have been made to address points raised and there's been plenty of time for all participants to consider the merits of others' views. With that in mind, and having discussed with fellow coord Graham, I'm promoting this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 17 August 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.
More