Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosecroft Raceway/archive1

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 13:16, 1 December 2012 [1].

---

Rosecroft Raceway

Rosecroft Raceway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Rosecroft Raceway/archive1

Nominator(s):
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. I have spent the past several months researching, writing, and making the article the best I can. It has gone through a peer review, a good article nomination, and another peer review; I feel the article is ready. I hope everyone has a good time reading it, and become well-informed on a site my family has spent the past 50+ years at. Comments are appreciated.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Source spot-checks - Went through some of the sources and found a couple of verification issues and one close paraphrasing concern, along with a few formatting issues and such.

• Ref 17 verifies the sentence it covers with no paraphrasing concerns. No problems here.
  • Cool.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 21 verifies that Cam's Card Shark was threatening to break the single-season earnings record. It doesn't mention the William E. Miller Memorial or other notable horses, but ref 20 is also used here and the title implies that it is about the section (it's offline and I can't check it).
  • I fixed that sentence a little bit and added another reference. Reference 20 does mention the Miller Memorial; if you want to see it, I can get a copy and upload it online.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 29 verifies its short sentence with no paraphrasing concerns. No problems here either.
  • Cool.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 35 verifies the partnership going into bankruptcy, and it looks like the previous reference deals with the cocaine arrest.
  • Mhm.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 51 verifies its sentence for the most part. It doesn't say the races were actually dropped, but again an offline reference is also there, and may support that part.
  • As previously mentioned, if you want me to scan and upload it, I can do that.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 67 doesn't say live racing ended in 2009, or that the track depended on simulcasts. It mentions simulcasts, but I don't see anything on dependence. The other facts the reference supports are verified.
  • I added another reference, and I edited the sentence. Let me know if this works.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 70 should have its publisher italicized. Not a spot-check, but worth mentioning while I'm here.
  • Thanks. Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 76: "Penn National would demolish the existing grandstand at Rosecroft and build a casino alongside the track...". Article: "It proposed demolishing its existing grandstand and building a casino...". Some of the wording verges on overly close paraphrasing. Also, the ref could use a date.
  • The reference already has a date? And, I reworded the sentence a bit. Let me know if this works or not.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 81 doesn't say the voter referendum will be in November.
  • Used a different reference. Let me know if this works.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• All caps in ref 93 should be removed.
  • Should it? It's an abbreviation/their stock symbol.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• What makes ref 84 (Boxing Along the Beltway) a reliable source? It looks like a blog. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Per the about page:

BATB is "The place to go if you want to know about any upcoming show or results, from amateur to the pros, in Virginia, Maryland and the District." -- Thom Loverro, ESPN 980 radio. I've covered the Boxing scene in the Washington, DC/Baltimore area for 28 years. I was inducted into the Washington, DC Boxing Hall of Fame in November, 2009. I am also a feature writer for Fightnews.com. I was the play-by-play announcer on the TV series "Boxing Spotlight" which highlighted pro boxing along the Beltway. I have also appeared on numerous radio stations across the country talking about the sport.

—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Giants, for the comments. I greatly appreciate it!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments – I was planning on leaving the substantive reviewing to others, but I feel guilty that nobody has looked at the article in the last month. Therefore, I want to leave some comments so you'll at least have some feedback from this process.

• Optimally, facts in the lead should be in the body of the article as well, and cited in the body. Nicknames aren't easy to work with, but I think this would be improved if the nickname and cite could be worked in elsewhere.
  • Alright. I added something about the nickname in the construction part. Does that work?
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Following the death of Miller". Which one are we talking about here, William or John? I think it's John, but the current writing leaves it unclear. I don't like seeing first names repeated without a good reason, but this may be a case where doing so is appropriate.
  • I prefer to leave first names out, but you're right; this is a case where first names may be appropriate. Added.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Money generated from the casinos was used to increase the purses, handle (daily betting turnover), and Rosecroft was unable to generate the same amount of money." First, I'm thinking that the comma after "purses" should be removed and "and" inserted for the benefit of the sentence's structure. Second, I'm not wild about seeing two "generate"s in a sentence like this. Surely some more variety can be put into the writing with a different but similar word?
  • Fixed, and changed the second generate to "produce."
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Lyndon B Johnson, Elizabeth Taylor, and Nancy Pelosi, and among others". Second "and" should be removed, and a period should be added after the president's middle initial.
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Miller family: 1947–1987: "Each year during the Miller era, several thousands of people...". Sounds like it should be either "several thousand people" or "thousands of people", but the current wording sounds odd.
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure we need two non-free images to show old grandstands. I can't see more than one being considered acceptable, if that.
  • I felt it was necessary since it shows different designs of the track. Also, the first non-free image shows the high attendance the track used to have, unlike nowadays.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Mark Vogel: 1987–1990: "Rosecroft was awarded with another Breeders Cup race in 1988, making it their fifth straight—but final—year." We haven't learned to this point that Rosecroft had a Breeders Cup race as early as 1984, or that it was an annual event there, only that a race was hosted in 1985. Consider adding something about this in the previous section.
  • I notice that an addition was made, but it introduced a typo: "augural" should be "inaugural". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I fixed it.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "and attendance figures lowered." Not sure about "lowered" when "declined", "fell", or numerous other words would improve the prose here.
  • Changed to declined.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Typo in "Instead, Vogel focused more on his real state business."?
  • Fixed typo.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Cloverleaf Enterprises, 1995–2010: In the chart caption, "decrease" needs to be "decreased" instead.
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Penn National Gaming: 2011–present: "Penn National also said its intent to ...". "said" → "announced"? In this sentence that word would work much better.
  • Changed to announced.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Since the abbreviation PG isn't explained anywhere, this might as well be spelled out.
  • Spelled it out.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Non-horse racing activities: "The Old School Boxing Gym located there". Add "is" before "located".
  • Added.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The gym served as refuge to children in the area." Needs "a" before refuge, I think.
  • Yep, it does. Added.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Normally I'd tell you to decapitalize "Heavyweight Championship", but there's a bigger problem here. George Foreman was not the heavyweight champion in 1969, and our article on Foreman says this was the third fight of his career. This probably needs to be changed to "Before his heavyweight championship tenure" or similar. And is there anything else that can be added about this? A heavyweight champion like Foreman fighting at this track is very interesting, to say the least.
  • I agree. I fixed the sentence, and I'll go digging to see what I can find about the fight and such.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Seth Mitchell is no longer undefeated; he just lost his first fight last week.
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Remove "for" from "The area also serves for large banquets."?
  • Removed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Add "an" before "annual Senior Citizen Day".
  • Added.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Reference 84 has a formatting issue that causes the link not to show up.
  • Fixed the error.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 01:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

comments

• I know a person can work "at the track", but can a horse?
  • I guess not. I reworded the sentence.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• "winningest" is not a word that I know of.
  • Per Oxford Dictionary, it's an informal word. Since it's informal, I changed it to "most winning," which the dictionary says is correct.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• the section on Vogel's ownership is underwhelming and not entirely consistent. Snyder says Vogel made mistakes. One was that he took money out of the betting pools. This is said to reduce profit for the owners. But Vogel was the owner. So why would it be an issue for him to move money between two of is businesses? it says attendance dropped. But later we are told that, during Vogel's tenure, It attracted maryland's most popular race, and also a race at which a record was set for the handle at the track. Hardly the signs of a failing business with declining attendance.

May do more another time. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Over a month at FAC, no support, and prose issues calling for an independent copyedit are apparent. Random samples only (fixing these alone will not resolve my concern), suggest withdrawal:

• In the early 1950s, attendance reached over 7,000 every day. Every day?
  • Yeah, like every day? Not sure what you mean here.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If I may butt in, I think Sandy means that there weren't literally that many people there at each racing session. Something like "In the early 1950s, average attendance was more than 7,000 per day" is probably close to what she's looking for. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Ohhh, I misunderstood. I changed the sentence.
        —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• After Miller's death in 1954, his son John owned Rosecroft until his death in 1969. Death, death repetitive prose. Find a synonym.
  • Per, WP:Euphemism, it says to use died or death because it's neutral.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • You could say "After Miller died in 1954" to fix this issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • That's true.
        —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Vogel made several mistakes that hurt the horse racing industry in Maryland. That's vague.
  • It's used as an intro sentence, and it is explained better throughout the paragraph.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• In the 2000s, Cloverleaf attempted to sell Rosecroft multiple times, but due to lawsuits and politics, all the potential buyers left. Politics? Left?
  • Changed the left to "became uninterested." Also, not sure what to add about the politics part. That's in the lead, and the reader finds the information--in greater detail--when reading down.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That is only a few sentences. This article will likely have a better chance at promotion if it is copyedited off-FAC and re-submitted in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I thank you for the comments, Sandy, but I have to disagree with a majority of them. Maybe I am misunderstanding them.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Returning for another look after noticing Giants has been at work in here. I went to the bottom for a prose check, and found excessive wordiness:

• Built in 1949, Rosecroft is on 125 acres of land. There is main parking by the main entrance; in total there are 2,500 parking spots.

That has several redundancies and also note the missing conversion on acres-- that needs to be checked throughout. Eliminating the redundancies could yield something like:

• Rosecroft was bult in 1949 on 125 acres (51 ha). There are 2,500 parking spaces including main parking by the main entrance.

The prose needs an independent copyedit-- this is a random sample only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.