Talk:Rowing (sport): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:43, 11 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rowing (sport) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Rowing (sport) was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 1, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
December 1, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 2, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
January 25, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
September 11, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Water sports High‑importance

	Rowing (sport) is within the scope of the WikiProject Water sports, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Water sports. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Water sportsWikipedia:WikiProject Water sportsTemplate:WikiProject Water sportsWater sports
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

To-do list:

Featured Articles:

Raise the rowing (sport) article to featured status.
1. Get article relisted to 'good article status'
2. Put through another round of peer review, see here
3. 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

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Rowing (sport)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am only a very small percentage of the way through the article but I can see that the Lead will need to be greatly expanded per WP:LEAD. The Lead is to be a summary of all the points brought up in the article. An article of this length should have a 2-3 paragraph lead.

I'm also concerned about a lack of references in the Rowing section. Thus far I see that the description of the two forms of rowing is not referenced, also the Rowing propulsion and Fitness and health subsections are not referenced. This is a concern that will likely be raised again given the fact that there are only 27 in-line citations and a majority of them appear to be in the History section. More to come. H1nkles (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The History section looks good, I put a ^{[citation needed]} template in the FISA subsection though at the point of facts about Rowing's participation in the Olympics, this should have a reference.

Speaking of references the Equipment section is devoid of a single in-line citation, this should be remedied. Also the Colours subsection is two sentences, a bit short for its own section, can it be combined with the Oars subsection?

In the Competition section I put another ^{[citation needed]} template after the statement that rowers have the highest power outputs of any athletes in any sport. This should be referenced. In the Side by side subsection, why is side by side bold? This doesn't seem to fit with the MOS. As a general comment, when there are distances they should show both metric and imperial conversions. Per WP:UNIT that would mean the imperial conversion would be in parentheses. For example 10 km (6.2 miles). Also be consistent with putting metric first and imperial in parentheses. H1nkles (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the World Championships subsection there should be a reference after the assertion that athletes consider the Olympic events to be the premier events. This could be a violation of WP:WEASEL unless there is a citation. There is a general lack of references in this section. The Women subsection seems to have a lot of specific information about the rowing conditions in the U.S. There is no comparable information about other countries. This could be construed as a bias. Also some of the information is a bit superfluous.

Rewrote the section on Women and added cites. Moved the pre-existing content to the main article Women's rowing. Whizz40 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the References section # 24 is dead and # 25 times out. Please repair. The formatting is pretty good, usually italics is reserved for newspaper, book or jounal titles, but that's not a big deal.

Overarching comments: The primary problems with the article are a general lack of references and the lead needs to be expanded to encompass all subjects addressed in the article. I put a couple of ^{[citation needed]} templates into the article but this is just a start. The writing is solid, the photos are good, the article is stable. There are a few MOS issues but I wouldn't hold up GA listing on them. It really comes down to the references and the lead. I will put the article on hold for a week pending work. I will notify interested projects and editors in the hope that these issues can be addressed and the article can be kept at GA. Should you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been on hold for the better part of three weeks and no appreciable work has been done on my recommendations. As such I will delist the article from GA and encourage any interested editors to bring the article back up to GA Criteria and renominate at WP:GAC. H1nkles (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scull blade area?

This

The combined blade area of a pair of sculls is however greater than that of a single sweep oar, so the oarsman when sculling is working against more water than when rowing sweep-oared. He is able to do this because the body action in sculling is more anatomically efficient (due to the symmetry).

seems dubious to me. When rowing (properly) you aren't moving water, you are moving the boat through the water while the blade is essentially fixed. So a bigger blade is no more work William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it also ignores the "gearing" of the blades - ratio of inboard to length to outboard length, which will be significantly different. --Ozhiker (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with this, rowing is a movement of yourself and not the water around you. Imagine the water as a solid object that you are grabbing and pulling yourself forwards with over and over again, you are incrementally pulling yourself along. But what if you are rowing in a current that is just as strong as you, would you be moving forward just as fast as the water is pushing you back or in that case would you be pushing that water away. I believe that it would be the first case where you are moving just as fast as it is pushing back which causes you not to move at all. Imagine it as if it where you running on a tread mill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.76.252 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regaining Good article status

I've made an edit to start to bring the article back to good article status, based on the recommendations.

Shortened the anatomy of stroke section - I didn't this needed as much detail for general readers - it should be on the main article page.
Merged Oars and colours sections
Add a number of images - e.g. sculler, oarlock, side by side race
Distances should now all be in metric and imperial conversions
Added heavyweight header and put this and lightweight under the weight-classes header
Removed a lot of the see also's at the bottom, these are linked in the rowing navbox.

Still to do (that I can see):

Improve lead section (2 to 3 paragraph- summary of the whole page)
Inline citations/references (lacking in these sections - basic information, Rowing propulsion, Fitness and health, Equipment, Steering, Oars, Boat storage and boat houses, Competition, Head races, Boat positions, Weight classes, Women, Terminology)
- Rewrote the section on Women and added cites. Moved the pre-existing content to the main article Women's rowing. Whizz40 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images needed for some sections

If you can help out with any of these please do! Update the list as you go. Also, join WP:Rowing if you have an interest in rowing articles -Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

feathering

Why?? Does the aerodynamic drag really matter that much?
Also: Certainly derived from this: Propeller (aeronautics)#Feathering
--BjKa (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it sure does - try it at race speed! But it's also to reduce the height the blade must be carried over the water, and to lessen the impact if the blade touches the water during the recovery. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to factor in the wind when feathered wind has less of an effect on the oat as the oars "cut" through the wind however a squared blade because it is shaped to "catch" water can also "catch" air which could effect the speed of a shell and is a large part of technique taught to rowers.--Mlaraba (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian origins

The article makes references to the origins of the sport in ancient Egypt but seems to reference Greek and Roman mythology as a source. While I don't suggest that mythology should be dismissed out of hand, I feel the need to point out another source I've just found while investigating this topic. "Historically, race rowing was unknown in ancient Egypt (Touny and Wenig, 1969), or to the Vikings (Wahlqvist, 1978) despite the fact that they depended on boats which could be rowed for transport." [Physiology of Sports], edited by Thomas Reilly, N. Secher, P. Snell, C. Williams, Dr C Williams, p229. Is this something that deserves inclusion in the article? I think it does. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 00:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sculling vs. Sweep boats

This paragraph opens the section on boat types: "Although sculling and sweep boats are generally identical to each other (except having different riggers), they are referred to using different names: ... "

As someone who isn't involved in the sport I have no idea what Sculling and Sweep mean, and the article doesn't explain it. I think one is "each rower has a pair of oars, one for each side of the boat" vs. "each rower has only one oar, and the side it is on alternates down the length of the boat" But, this isn't explained and should be.

A less important point is that I also don't know what "riggers" are.

So, the sport specific terms need to be explained or defined before being used to describe things for the article to be really useful.

ZeroXero (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rowing (sport). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090609130144/http://www.speedrower.com:80/index.htm to http://www.speedrower.com/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

terminology

Terminology on boat classifications was discussed but their are terms for different technical aspects as well such as "catching a crab" when the oar is caught in the water which is further broken down into three levels by usrowing in their safety video.--Mlaraba (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two forms of rowing:

I'm a UK-based rower and I'm having difficulty understanding the below paragraph:

There are two forms of rowing

In sweep or sweep-oar rowing, each rower has a tower, held with both feet. This is generally done in pairs, fours, and eights. In same regions of the world, each riders in a sweep boat is referred to either as port or starboard, depending on which side of the boat the rower's oar extends to. In other regions, the port side is referred to as stroke side, and the starboard side as bow side; this applies even if the stroke oarsman is rowing on bow side and/or the bow oarsman on stroke side.

In sculling each rower has two oars (or sculls), one in each land. Sculling is usually done without a coxswain, in quads, doubles or singles. The tower in the sculler's right hand extends to port, and the oar in the left hand extends to starboard.

What is a tower? There's a reference to a tower being held with both feet but also a reference to a tower being in a sculler's right hand - both can't be correct?

What is meant by "riders"? "rowers" or "side" maybe?

"Stroke oarsman" and "coxswain" are referred to but haven't been defined at this point in the text.

The last sentence refers to a tower in the sculler's right hand and an oar in the sculler's left hand - surely the same thing will be in a sculler's left and right hands?

It is not explained that when sweep rowing, a rower will have a single oar. Zin92 (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem arose from this vandalism in January, which I have now reverted. Thank you for pointing it out. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rowing (sport). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trops?

Regarding this edit, I did find this thread on Reddit. I know, not a WP:RS, but it does at least hint that the term is real. But, yeah, without a WP:RS, it shouldn't be there. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damage

I disagree with the statement that "the most commonly damaged piece of rowing equipment is the skeg". In my opinion it would be blades ... closely followed by riggers ... and what about seats?

Whether or not you agree with this, note that there is no mention at all of these and other types of damage.
Unless someone else beats me to it, I shall add some text to that effect.
Here is my proposal: feel free to add/adapt :

All parts of rowing equipement are fragile, especially as they are designed for light weight and relatively high speeds. The most commonly damaged parts are blades, riggers and boat hulls. -- jw (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section order

The order of these sections is not optimal.
I propose the following re-ordering and re-numbering of sections:

3 Equipment
3.1 Steering
3.2 Blades
3.3 Indoor rowing
3.3.1 Rowing tank
3.3.2 Ergometer
3.4 Boat storage, boat houses, and boat centers
3.5 Damage
3.6 Transportation
4 Competition et seq.

What say you ? Please react ! -- jw (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]