Wikipedia:Peer review/Rosecroft Raceway/archive1

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.
  • 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)
  • There is too little, for my taste, in the article on the actual racing that has occurred.
  • 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])
  • 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"

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]