The Boat Race 1993 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2016.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 12, 2014 Good article nominee Listed September 16, 2014 Peer review Reviewed October 26, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on July 14, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the 1993 Boat Race, Cambridge used cleavers? Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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: history watch purge Featured Articles: Raise the rowing (sport) article to featured status. Get article relisted to 'good article status' Put through another round of peer review, see here 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 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 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 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 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Boat Race 1993/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SchroCat ( talk · contribs) 20:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I'll pick this one up: it may be a day or two, but I'll be round to it soon enough. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 20:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• A minor point, but do we have a pic of Pinsent where he doesn't look like he's picking his nose? Per MOS her should also be facing into the text, but that's a real minor thing I'm happy to overlook... - SchroCat ( talk) 15:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Commons has a few to choose from but mostly you can actually tell it's him. If it's an issue, I'll remove the image, I'm not enamoured by it either... The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply
    • It's not an issue, and I'll spin the image to have him facing inwards: the article needs a splash of colour in a picture, and Pinsent is one of the better known British sportsmen, so it's right he's in there. - SchroCat ( talk) 20:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Ok, cool. I guess a close crop to avoid the nose-picking would be too close? The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I've twisted him round, and done a couple of very minor ces too: all good and happy to pass here.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Y

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Y

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Y

   C. No original research: Y

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Y

   B. Focused: Y

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias: Y

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc: Y

6. 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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: All good: I am happy to ✓ Pass – SchroCat ( talk) 08:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Following in the wake of the success of The Boat Race 2012, this one is next in my pipeline for FAC. A successful GA, this has some interesting facets to it and I'd like some other non-involved eyes to give it a look over.

Thanks in advance for your time and efforts, The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• "Oxford were strong pre-race favourites, having won 16 of the last 17 races." - third mention of last 17 races. Sentence is not needed.

  It's only the second mention. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Why is Goldie wikilinked but not Isis?

  There's no article for Isis. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Ref 18 needs an access date.

  Added. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• "for the first time in the history of the race" could just be shortened to "for the first time"
• "Cambridge prevented Oxford making it seventeen wins" doesn't sound right to me. Would "Cambridge prevented Oxford winning seventeen times" be better?
• Images lack alt-text.

Good luck on the featured article nomination!

This edit makes a number of changes, mainly based on personal preference, some based on grammar and some based on actual correction. I have removed it and made a few individual changes, but it appears that the edits are being slowly re-introduced. I would like to see some discussion here on these changes to the article which was peer reviewed and promoted to featured status without all these modifications. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply