Jump to content

Talk:Rosecroft Raceway: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 516607720 by PeerReviewBot (talk) Should not be archives, no comments
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Gambling}}, {{Horse racing}}, {{WikiProject Maryland}}.
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 12: Line 12:
|action2oldid=514234066
|action2oldid=514234066


|action3=PR
|currentstatus=GA
|action3date=06:03, 23 October 2012
|action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Rosecroft Raceway/archive2
|action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=517133563

|action4=FAC
|action4date=13:16, 1 December 2012
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosecroft Raceway/archive1
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=525804798

|topic=Sports and recreation
|topic=Sports and recreation
|currentstatus=GA
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=
{{Peer review|archive=2}}
{{WikiProject Gambling | importance=low}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Gambling
{{WikiProject Horse racing|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Maryland |importance=Low}}
|class=GA
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes
| importance=low}}
{{Horse racing
|class=GA
|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Maryland
|class=GA
|importance=Low}}
}}
}}



Latest revision as of 02:31, 25 February 2024

Good articleRosecroft Raceway has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 23, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
September 23, 2012Good article nomineeListed
October 23, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
December 1, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rosecroft Raceway/GA1. 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)[reply]

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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
General
  • Images are good. Most are freely licensed, one has a FU claim
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!)
  • "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
  • " 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.
  • "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
Miller family
Mark Vogel
Weisman
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.
Overall