Talk:Rosecroft Raceway/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 21:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * General
 * Images are good. Most are freely licensed, one has a FU claim
 * It is not required for a GA pass, but alternative text on images is recommended
 * Added ALT text.
 * A good attempt, but the purpose is to describe the image for someone who cannot see the picture. So "A picture of..." doesn't help a lot.  Buildings are tough, but for the first image, I would probably go with "A square building with red and white vertical striping along the roof.  A banner on the front shows Rosecroft's logo and the statement "Welcome Back Racing Fans!" " Resolute 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources look good, references I spot checked supported their claims and indicated no concern with close paraphrasing
 * Awesome!

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Redundant to note twice in the opening paragraph that Miller died in 1954. I would remove the first mention. (in fact, you actually note three times in the opening paragraph that Miller died!)
 * Fixed.
 * "Vogel made several mistakes that hurt the horse racing industry in Maryland, and three years later, he was arrested for possession of cocaine, and his company went into bankruptcy" - run-on sentence. Consider rewording
 * Re-worded. Think I got it.
 * " Rosecroft was then sold to Weisman's Colt Enterprises. In that same year..." - "In that same year" lacks context since you have not identified the year Colt Enterprise bought the facility.
 * Added the year.
 * "After filing for bankruptcy once again, Rosecroft Raceway closed down in 2010. Several states legalized casinos to help its racetracks, which increased the purses, handle (daily betting turnover), and attendance, making Rosecroft an unprofitable business." - I am somewhat confused by this. At first blush, I was going to suggest reversing these two sentences, as you appear to place the consequence (track closing) before the cause.  However, I don't see how the legalization of casinos, designed to help the tracks, made Rosecroft unprofitable. This needs to be explained better
 * Played around with the sentences. See if you want me to change it further.
 * Better. I realized reading later in the article that Rosecroft struggled because states other than Maryland legalized casinos.  I changed "several states" to "nearby states" to reflect this.  Feel free to change back if I have changed the intended meaning. Resolute 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC) —Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Miller family
 * "William E. Miller—a harness racing Immortal..." - the linked article suggests one can only become an "immortal" after they have died. Consequently, this is anachronistic. Easily fixed by noting he was a "future immortal".
 * Added.
 * "In 1985, Rosecroft was able to host the 2-Year-Old Pace of the Breeders Crown," - Simplify to "In 1985, Rosecroft hosted the 2-year-old Pace..."
 * Changed.
 * Most of the third paragraph is listed in proseline. Consider changing up the start of a few sentences so they don't all begin with "In year, something happened".
 * I think I changed it a bit. Am I going in the right direction with it?
 * Yup, looking better. Resolute 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mark Vogel
 * "The year-round racing Rosecroft was awarded lowered the excitement for the locals, and Rosecroft was not capable of attracting a new market, and attendance figures lowered." - run-on sentence
 * Fixed.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weisman
 * Could you reword the very last sentence? Ending with "and were forced to not have them" is awkward.
 * Reworded. Tell me what you think.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cloverleaf
 * " From the gambling revenue, 7 percent goes to the horse-racing industry, but Rosecroft is only allowed to have up to $1.2 million for a minimum of 40 live-racing days from 2012 to 2015. This is only possible, however, if the owners "agree to rehire workers employed at the facility prior to the end of live racing on June 27, 2008; and recognize collective bargaining agreements that were in place as of June 1, 2008". - Is this passage in the wrong place? It seems to be talking about the present situation under Penn, and not the situation under Cloverleaf. The notations on what Rosecroft is allowed from 2012-2015 is particularly confusing, given the very next statement is that the track closed in 2010.
 * I just took some of it out. It was confusing, and I couldn't find the old law.

—Michael Jester (talk &#183; contribs) 23:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall
 * Looks pretty good, but a few rough edges as noted above. I am placing on hold pending the resolution of these issues. Regards, Resolute 21:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better. I am passing this, though I would say the alternative text still requires work.  Well done. Regards, Resolute 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Resolute! I am happy about this GA. Happy editing!