User:Eddie891/Fleetwood Park Racetrack spotcheck

Disclaimer: A first impression is by no means the final impression-- happy to be corrected on anything I missed.

-- -- --

25 source spotcheck.

1 9 11 14 19 26 38 43 44 51 52 53 56 59 65 66 68 71 72 74 76 77 89 94 98

(I'm assuming these are numbers per Special:Permalink/1178675663 RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's correct - Eddie891 Talk Work 15:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

key:

y = yes

y? = mostly

n? = maybe not?

n = missing info

Broader thoughts:


 * you should be consistent about use of RP versus putting page numbers in the footnotes (ie, 11 should probably not use rp)
 * That ref ended up getting dropped, so no longer an issue
 * It may be useful to use some sort of note template (ie efn) for the inflation calcs, otherwise it kinda messes up the flow of sourcing
 * I took a look at efn. My brain hurts.  I'll come back later and see if I can make more sense out of it.
 * FN 4 needs page numbers or something every time you cite it-- it's a 45 page document
 * Done
 * I'm seeing some sources give contradictory information about the length of the track-- I'd probably want to see that in the article.
 * Which sources did you see with contradictory information?
 * If memory serves, FN 53 of the old permalink says 1 and 1/4 miles
 * It does, see page 117.
 * Hmmm. InternetArchive says I can't view that page because somebody else already has the book checked out :-)
 * Whoops, just returned it! Eddie891 Talk Work 20:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * p.4 of the Clay Avenue Historic District mentions descriptions of the racetrack in a couple of sources that I don't see cited in the article, ie and . Have you taken a look at these to see if either might have something worth adding? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Complete Book of Harness Racing has some interesting material, thanks. But, if it's OK with you, I'd like to hold off on that.  Much of what you're finding now are problems introduced by the recent churn; making changes in response to review comments and the associated references getting out of sync.  I think it makes more sense to get through what we're doing now before I start making any other changes.  RoySmith (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense to me Eddie891 Talk Work 11:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this is interesting. I don't know why this didn't show up before, but I just found https://archive.org/details/trotalong00goch/page/n5/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater&q=bonner which has a ton of good information that I need to digest.  The most interesting thing is that it turns out there were two Bonner brothers: David and Robert.  One owned the horses, the other was president of the Driving Club.  Looking over some of the earliest drafts of the article, I had found information on both but somehow conflated them as the same person, so I need to get that sorted out.

I handled some of the issues in the table below. I'll probably come back this evening to take a look at the remaining items. In the meantime, you need to get a d92 RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I believe the only outstanding issues are the efn templates (which I'll work on) and different sources giving different lengths (which I'm waiting on you for more information). Let me know if I've missed anything else. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Efn templates are completely optional and not part of the source spotcheck. I just think it might help with anyone in the future who is interested in checking citations so it doesn't break up the text. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to pushforward on this one. I agree with you that the convert citations are ugly and user unfriendly.  Using efn looks like a better way to do that, I just need to get my head around how it works.  RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I couldn't figure out how to make efn play nice with Inflation/fn, but I found a different way to separate these out into a distinct notes section. Let me know if that's what you had in mind.  RoySmith (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not what I would have done, but I think it works, and is arguably even clearer than how I would have handled it. If you're happy with that, I certainly am. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been re-reviewing this, trying to stay a few ref numbers ahead. Hope I'm finding things before you do :-)  How would you have handled Special:Diff/1180599270?  There's a longish passage all referenced to the same source.  I added another source specifically to show that "Springfield" means "Springfield, Massachusetts".  Logically it seems like it would make more sense to tack that right after "Springfield", but then I'd have to duplicate the other reference to cover both the parts before and after, which would be ugly.
 * Thanks for taking a look. I'm terribly busy IRL this week, until Sunday (realistically maybe Monday), so please forgive any delays in progress here. I think it's fine to put that ref at the end of the passage as you have done. You could always add a comment about what specifically it sources if you want, but I agree it would be worse to do the unnecessary duplication. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No need for apologies. I really appreciate the huge amount of effort you're putting into helping me get this into shape.  RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Source check
Now basing on Special:Permalink/1179617330.

Now basing on Special:Permalink/1180841269]

Sources 1-44 (roughly): done

Ongoing
Special:Permalink/1181830614


 * side note: if FN 21 uses RP, it shouldn't have a page number in the citation template
 * I went the other way and removed the RP; it's all just a 2-page section so no need for the intrusive RP stuff
 * are the two sentences beginning with "Robert was well known for paying large " really relevant to this article?
 * had asked the same thing in his review. My response to him was I think the value there is to highlight that the track was a plaything of the rich and famous, which I still think makes sense, but if you (plural) feel strongly about this, I'll be happy to drop it.
 * can you elaborate on what the "Special day" was?
 * Unfortunately, the source doesn't go into details.  had asked about this and what came out of that was citing it as a direct quotation.  I'm open to better suggestions.