Wikipedia:Peer review/Rosecroft Raceway/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rosecroft Raceway[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what needs to be done to bring this article to GA-class. For years, I've been trying to keep this place open; it means a lot to me, my family, several of my friends, and many other people in Maryland. Any comments/help are greatly appreciate!

Thanks,
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Peripitus

Just a few thoughts on this article

  • The lead has the quote "first class in every aspect" that is not referenced and I cannot find it later in the article. This quote also needs to be attributed.
    • Removed the quote from the lead. It's in the second-to-last sentence in the first paragraph, though.
      —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A photo of the course with trotting in action would be good, perhaps also a picture of the grandstands and a layout map of the whole site (like this)
    • I'll see if I can work on a map. And I'm going there this Saturday, so I'll take some pictures then.
      —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is too little, for my taste, in the article on the actual racing that has occurred.
    • This is where I'm slightly confused. I'm not sure what could be in the article.
      —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess the best way to explain is to point to another article. Look at paragraph 3 of the lead in Washington Park Race Track (though the repeated use of "notable" there makes me wince), the section called "Major races" in the same and also "Horses who raced at Washington Park". - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are unnecessary duplicated references - see the change I've made to sentence 2 in "History". If two consecutive sentences use the same reference, it only is needed at the end of the second. excess [x] marks make the article harder to read. (see issue with ref [10] and [12])
    • Didn't know that. I always thought every sentence needed a reference. I think I got most of them.
      —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The track has a grandstand - how large, when built, what is it made of ?
  • Why is it known as the Raceway by the Beltway ? (I had to open another article to find this out)
  • I can see an article in the Mid-Atlantic country: Volume 8; Volume 8 (1986) via google books that there was dining for up to 1,100 people. Seems like a dining facility that large should have mention of its size, construction covered in reliable sources....and so could be covered in the article.
  • I'd like to see coverage of the festivals, fund raisers and flea markets held there (me paraphrasing from the book Fort Washington which I see you've used as a reference). In short I can see that there is more material out there that would help broaden the information in the article.
    • Okay. I'll re-read it and see what I can add.
  • The lead should be longer but I think this will come by summarising after a bit of broader information is added.
  • There is some problematic text in the article. (just picked a couple)
  • "also hoping" is really the same as just hoping.
  • "the financial resources to do so for at least two years" - two years of what ? I know what you mean but it's a bit wordy and unclear.
  • "that it plans" in reference to an event in the past -> "that it planned"
  • The sentence containing "reiterated its intent" is an issue. Nowhere in the article is it stated that they initially had the intent.
  • "make horse racing popular again in Maryland" - I'd like to see something on it's popularity before and how much this declined up to the time referred to by this sentence.

I like the article; it's an interesting subject and well referenced. It does need more information to flesh it out and editing into a more prose-like state. Look out for words that are often unneeded like "also", "located". - Peripitus (Talk) 12:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Peripitus, for reviewing this article. I will be using your comments to help better the article!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Rosecroft_Raceway/archive1&oldid=495645065"