# Talk:Washington Park Race Track

This article meets all of the GA criteria except for being broad in coverage. The article is well-sourced and well-written, but needs further expansion to reach GA. Consider getting a peer review to see what other information should be included or further research information about the track. Keep up the good work and try again later. --Nehrams2020 19:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have failed the Good Article nomination, as it requires more than just minor changes. Below are my thoughts concerning what needs to be done to make Washington Park Race Track a Good Article. The information is in a bulleted list, with the pertaining section of Wikipedia:What is a good article? noted.

1a -- The article is difficult to read throughout. It begins badly, with a jumbled lead (see WP:LEAD), which does not flow at all. The information within the lead is good, but it needs to be rewritten. Moving into the main article itself, the same problems remain. The prose is not clear. Grammar occasionally fails. Both sections concerning the old track and the new track are difficult to follow.
3a & 3b -- Both sections concerning the old track and the new track are not fully developed. They are not broad in coverage, and seem to stray randomly to various points.
The article is well-sourced, and has excellent images to back it up, however, I feel the article simply does not meet GA requirements, and needs a thorough rewrite. -- PEPSI2786talk 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can scan in a diagram of the track from 1959, but it'll have to be fair use, and don't want to bother if folks don't think it'd be useful in the article. For that matter, i could probably find a range of them, I just pulled out the 1960 American Racing Manual to look up some race history. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A track diagram would be great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Okies, will try to scan in a few tonight. I'll try to dig up some of the coverage on the two match races, which were pretty big deals at the time. The Nashua-Swaps one especially. I have to run some errands this afternoon before the weather gets too icky, but should have time to throw some more stuff at the article tonight. I don't think it's close to done yet, but will post here when I think I'm finished. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded and placed the diagram. Please double check the fair use rationale, I think that's the first one I've ever done, so I might have screwed it up. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Did some worsmithing here, hope it helped.  The article is has lots of good info, but it is a little choppy, tried to clan up what was there and hopefully didn't mess up anything or substantially change its meaning.   Montanabw(talk) 03:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written:
Pass The prose seems fine.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Not Yet there are comparably few sources for the beginning sections, the opener and the "Original Track" sections needs more references. Virtually every specific detail should be referenced. Also, the References themselves need formatting, either merging the same references together or shortening them to notes.
This article was written with the uncited WP:LEAD format where all facts are cited in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that there is a longstanding policy at FAC permitting uncited leads (E.G. another article I have been involved with which passed at WP:FAC last month, or another one Tyrone Wheatley, which is at WP:FAC with a good chance to pass) and the other paragraph you mention is a five sentence paragraph with four footnotes, I am not sure if anything else need be cited.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what you want me to change about the refs.  I believe they are formatted according to WP:CITE and WP:NOTES.  Please advise if this is wrong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass appears broad enough.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass no problems there.
It is stable:
Not Yet there are too many red links in the article. I would recommend either removing these links, creating their articles, or redirecting them to existing articles.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass A recent image should be shown in place of the Map of the United States, as the US Map has little to do with the race track. Also, the "Horses" and "Stakes Races" sections need to be organized into tables.
What kind of recent photo do you want for a track that closed over thirty years ago?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Overall:
On Hold The article is getting very close to GA status, and is on hold until the above issues can be resolved. -Ed! (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written:
Pass
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass looks fine it seems.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass
It is stable:
Pass That's good now too.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass
Overall:
Pass well done. -Ed! (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)