Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fleetwood Park Racetrack/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2023 [1].

Fleetwood Park Racetrack[edit]

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a horse racing track which existed during the late 1800s in what is now the Bronx borough of New York City. Almost all physical traces of the track are gone, although the name Fleetwood is still used in many ways in the area. RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Tentative support from Girth Summit[edit]

  • Will give this a proper read through this weekend. My first impression is that the lead could be beefed up a little bit. At 13,559 characters, two paragraphs is compliant with MOS:LEADLENGTH, but I observe that they are two short paragraphs (both three sentences), and it is quite near the 15,000 character length where three paragraphs would be preferred. More to follow. Girth Summit (blether) 11:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've expanded the lede a bit.
      • Looks better.
  • "Fleetwood Park was a 19th-century harness racing (trotting) track..." Why is 'trotting' in parentheses? Unfamiliar as I am with horsey things in general, I first assumed that it was an alternative name for harness racing, but clicking on that article I see it is a type of harness racing. I wonder if this would be clearer to say something like 'harness racing track for trotting events' or some similar formulation? (Disregard this if that's how sources routinely refer to tracks like this - I may just be showing my ignorance.)
    • I'm also not an expert on horses, but the contemporaneous sources seem to use "harness racing" and "trotting" as synonyms.
      • OK.
  • "The most convenient way to get to the track..." - 'convenient' seems an odd word to use, there will inevitably have been some people who found other ways more convenient. I'd suggest either changing 'convenient' to 'common', or qualifying in some way ('The most convenient way for most visitors to get to the track...')
    • The source for this was Sun's Guide which said, "Fleetwood is easiest reached from Grand Central Station, by train to Melrose". I could add something like "according to Sun's Guide" if you think that would be useful.
      • Yes, I think that would be better.
        • Done.
  • "An 1897 New York City ordinance forbid the discharge of firearms..." I would use 'forbade' for past tense. Is that a AmEng versus BrEng thing?
    • Hmmm, I don't know the answer to that. I'll leave it for the grammarians to ponder.
      • I checked a few dictionaries, including Mirriam Webster, Oxford and Wiktionary. There seems to be general agreement that 'forbade' is the standard simple past tense in both AmEn and BrEn, with 'forbad' being a lesser-used alternate spelling.
        • Done.
  • "In 1895, the Harlem Railroad Company was also using the name Fleetwood in reference to a new rail station they were considering building in the area." This assertion seems to be supported by a citation to an 1855 publication; is it a typo in the date?
    • Fixed.
  • I'm a bit confused about the references in the history section to 'Mount Vernon'. The second paragraph of 'Prior to Fleetwood Park' gives me that there was a single area that was renamed a few times, including at one point 'Mount Vernon'. However, in the first paragraph of 'Post closure', it says that they considered opening a new track close to Mount Vernon, which makes me think that it's a different place. Could this apparent contradiction be clarified in some way for the benefit of readers who (like me) are almost completely unfamiliar with the local geography and history?
    • I'll need to think on that a bit. One thing I need to pin down for sure is whether the "Harlem Railroad Company" I refer to in the first section and the "Harlem River Railroad" I refer to later were two distinct companies. There were a lot of competing rail companies at the time, most of which underwent a series of bankruptcies and/or mergers and ultimately ended up either as part of what's now the NYC Subway or Metro-North. Part of the problem is that many of these companies had similar names, and the newspapers didn't always use the official names, so I'm not sure I'll be able to sort that out completely. I may end up having to hedge with some language in the article about this uncertainty.
    • Somewhat orthogonal to that, in Bronx County Bird Club, I created a map showing the location of various places mentioned in the article. Do you think it would be useful if I did the same here?
  • Should the quote by Cordova have a full stop/period at the end of it?
    • Fixed.
  • Can I suggest that there should be a paragraph break after "...the Empire City Trotting Club began operations at Yonkers Raceway." and before "Within a few years of Fleetwood closing..."? We seem to be shifting topic from the creation of a replacement track to the eventual fate of the old track.
  • Is there anything we can link 'Sun's Guide to New York' to, to let the reader know what this publication is? If not, a few words after its first mention might be useful - was it a general travel guide, a horse-racing publication, or whatever?
    • Nothing to link to, but I added an explanatory note. It is possble that it was related to The Sun (New York City), but that's just speculation.
      • The note helps.
  • Is the stuff about how much Robert Bonner paid for various horses telling us anything about this racetrack?
    • I think the value there is to highlight that the track was a plaything of the rich and famous.
      • Fair enough, I'd have probably left it out but I don't feel strongly about it.
  • What are 'transfer members'?
    • That I don't know. It's a term used in the cited financial report. Perhaps I should put it in quotes, as I did with "special day"? Nikkimaria had raised a similar point about what "assessment" meant in that same section.
      • Shame. Not sure what to do about that - I don't like using phrases that a general reader is likely not to understand without being able to point them at something to explain it.
        • Made it "transfer members", similar to I did with "special day"
  • I'm not a chemist, but I don't think that 'highly flammable' an accurate descriptor for nitroglycerin. It doesn't burn (react with oxygen in the air, producing flames), it's a contact explosive.
    • I removed "highly flamable".
  • One more general comment. I don't think I've seen an FA candidate before that is so extensively reliant on contemporaneous sourcing. The vast majority of the assertions are supported by 19th-century/early 20th century sources. I'm not going to oppose on those grounds - maybe it's more common than I think and I'm just not experienced enough in reviewing articles of this nature - but I'm always more comfortable when we're following modern sources and dipping into contemporaneous ones for extra details, quotation and the like. I'd have thought there must be some scholarship written in the last fifty years or so that touches on the history of this racetrack?

That's all from me for now. Girth Summit (blether) 12:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that when the couple of outstanding points above are ironed out one way or another, I'm likely to come down on supporting this. I am a bit uneasy about the lack of modern scholarly sources. I definitely want to support it - it's well-written, and an interesting read. I just have this nagging feeling that piecing articles together primarily from nineteenth-century press cuttings and early twentieth-century histories is really what professional historians should be doing, with us summarising their work in our articles. My first FA, Margaret Macpherson Grant, had to use a lot of contemporaneous sources too to get at a lot of the detail of her life, but I at benefited from this source, which despite being on a wordpres site was written by a scholar in a relevant field and has the backing of a UCL's British slavery project to give it some credibility: that helped tie everything together and provided a structure to hang the extra details on. If such a work doesn't exist for this racetrack then there's not much we can do about that, and I'm not going to stand in the way of it being promoted if other reviewers aren't concerned.

Girth Summit (blether) 16:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I think I've addressed all the points above, let me know if I missed anything. I'll keep looking for book-type sources, but I suspect I won't find any. Books that mention Fleetwood Park fall into two class. There's the Bronx history books, which mostly all just say the same thing: "There used to be this racetrack here where the rich and powerful of the time played with horses", And the books about horse racing, which seem to be mostly about the horses and their breeding and mostly just mention the track as having existed. RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm new at this, but WP:FACR only requires "high-quality reliable sources". It doesn't say anything about how books are preferred over newspapers. And, yeah, I know, not all the rules are written down :-( RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really 'we need a book', it's more 'we need to know what (if anything) modern scholars say, not just what journalists of the time said'. I guess my problem is that the further back in time we go to get sources, the more difficult it becomes to establish whether or not they are high quality and reliable. I'm not really thinking about this particular article here - it's pretty uncontroversial stuff, I don't seriously think that any of it is in real doubt. But speaking more generally, we don't treat all modern printed news sources as reliable - how confident can we be about a particular printed news sources from 100+ years ago?
The same goes for scholarship - my own (original) field of geology is an extreme example, but the Plate Tectonics Revolution in the middle of the 20th century pretty much changed everything about how geologists think about all sorts of processes like volcanoes, earthquakes and orogeny. Anything written on those subjects prior to 1970 is almost certain to have been superseded, and TBH we should really be looking for 21st-C sources because the field is evolving all the time. I've contributed to quite a few articles on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and the way historians think and write about them has changed markedly in the last fifty years or so. Details like 'this battle happened at this place on this day' haven't changed, but for discussions of motivations, political thought and so on, and even what the conflicts ought be be called, recent sources are needed if our articles are to reflect current thinking in 2023. (Again though, none of this really applies to this article.) Girth Summit (blether) 12:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there seems to be precedent for newspaper-heavy FAs. I counted the number of {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, etc, templates in all the pages under Category:Featured articles. Not perfect, for sure, but a reasonable first cut. I've uploaded the results (for all the ones with non-zero news) to User:RoySmith/fasources. Just spot-checking a few which seemed likely, Will P. Brady, Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House and 40 Wall Street all rely heavily on newspaper reports which I would call "historical", say the New York Times from 1899 or the El Paso Herald from 1919. RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That gives me some comfort. As I say, I'm happy to support if nobody else thinks this is an issue. Girth Summit (blether) 13:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit, as the person who nominated the U.S. Custom House and 40 Wall Street at FAC with large numbers of contemporaneous sources (although these two FAs also have some modern sources). my feeling is that such sources should be fine as long as these newspapers would also be considered reliable sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for the record that I'm withdrawing the 'tentative' part of my support - Epicgenuis's thorough review and comments on the sourcing have given me comfort, and I'm happy to support this article's promotion. Girth Summit (blether) 18:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Section 1[edit]

Always love to see a NYC subject at FAC. I'm reserving a spot here and will comment later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
Hmm, I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here. 1 mile (1.6 km) certainly gets the conversion, but violates the style convention that you should spell out "one". Suggestions?
You could use the "spell" parameter, e.g. {{convert|1|mi|m|spell=in}} which produces one mile (1,600 m). Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • 1st paragraph: "The one-mile course described an unusual shape, with four turns in one direction and one in the other." - How come this isn't just "four turns to the left and one to the right?
It's only four to the left if you run it counterclockwise, and I haven't found anything that says it's always run in that direction. I'm more explicit about this in the first paragraph of Description.
Ah, I see. Never mind, then. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph: "many wealthy businessmen of New York" - I feel like this can be rephrased as "many wealthy New York businessman".
Done.
  • 3rd paragraph: "with the shortfall being made up by annual assessments of the membership" - Like a property assessment, or a review of the membership.
The former, I've clarified that.
Description:
Done
  • 1st paragraph: "between 2nd and 5th Streets. This area lies between Webster and Sheridan Avenues and 165th and 167th Streets on the modern Bronx street grid." - Do you know whether 2nd and 5th Streets were renamed 165th and 167th, or do these streets not exist anymore?
Hmmm. It turns out the bit about 2nd and 5th street used to be sourced to an article in the Riverdale Press, which I eventually decided wasn't really a WP:RS so I dropped the source. Since the current source doesn't mention 2nd and 5th, I'll drop that too. FWIW, from looking at File:Map of the town of Morrisania, Westchester Co. N.Y. LOC 2004625898.jpg and comparing to the modern map, those streets only existed on the east side of Railroad Ave and I suspect got renumbered when the Bronx was annexed to NYC.
That makes sense. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph: "Attendance at races could reach as many as 10,000 spectators" - I'd suggest "Attendance reached up to 10,000" or something similar.
Tweaked.
  • 2nd paragraph: "People also came by carriage from New York City" - Might be useful to note that NYC only comprised Manhattan at the time. This could otherwise be confusing, especially since the 3rd paragraph mentions NYC ordinances and that Fleetwood Park was exempted.
The annexation of the Bronx was in 1874; this is covered in Fleetwood Park era. I've changed "New York City" to "Manhattan" here.
That resolves my concern quite nicely (I was wondering more about why you were referring to the Bronx as though it was separate from NYC). Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph: "Fulton Market slip in Brooklyn and Peck slip in Manhattan" - Peck Slip is an actual street name and should probably be capitalized if it's being used in that context.
Done.
  • 3rd paragraph: "The exemption, however, was deleted from the ordinance in 1906" - I'd delete "however" as it's unnecessary in context. Same for "In 1890, however, the US Congress designated Chicago".
I've deleted the first one, but kept the second to emphasize that this event contrary to the original expectation.
I understand. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geology:
  • I noticed this section is quite short. Are there any other sources talking about the area's geology? Did it affect the racetrack at all?
I haven't see any, but I'll do some more looking. The essential point here is that the area of flat ground is what made this the right place to build a racetrack. For example, under Prior to Fleetwood Park: Horses had been raced near this location as early as 1750, on a racecourse built by Staats Long Morris, who took advantage of the relatively level land.
So, there's lots of modern sources that talk about the geology of the Bronx, but none that I could find go into the level of detail as this quote, and certainly don't explicitly reference Fleetwood Park as a location.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Section 2[edit]
Prior to Fleetwood Park:
  • 1st paragraph: "This location ... this area" - These might fall afoul of MOS:WHATPLACE so I'd rephrase them.
I've changed the first one (Special:Diff/1175526277), but if it's OK with you, I'd prefer to keep the second one ("this area") as is. I tried a few alternatives, but all of them sounded awkward, with circumlocutions like "the area which was originally southern Westchester but became the Bronx"). I don't think there's any real confusion about what area is being referred to, so leaving it as "this area" seems simplist. I can make another attempt if you like.
Fine by me. Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph: "The exact location of his track is unclear; it may have occupied the same area as the later Fleetwood Park track, or it may have been several blocks further north, possibly adjacent to what is now Claremont Park." - To confirm, this is what the LPC said?
Yup. Oddly enough, c.I750 there was a racecourse in the vicinity, established by Staats Long Morris, ... Some sources suggest that his course occupied some of the same land as the later track (McNamara 1984:220), while others place it just south of Claremont Park (almost one mile north of the project lots). I've added some {{rp}} templates.
  • 1st paragraph: "about 3 miles (4.8 km) north of Fleetwood Park ... about 3 miles (4.8 km) east of Fleetwood" - I would be more comfortable if we had citations for these (even a map would be fine).
That verbiage predates the map I added {{Fleetwood Park Racetrack/map}}. How about I delete all the stuff about distances in the text and just let the map stand on its own? This is all just to give the reader a sense of orientation as to where the various places are which are mentioned in the article, so it doesn't need to be exact.
  • 2nd paragraph: "Some sources still refer to the area" - Does this mean specifically the Encyclopedia of New York City, or did the Encyclopedia of NYC cite some sources saying this?
Clarified
Fleetwood Park era:
  • "The paper noted that $200,000 (equivalent to $6,100,000 in 2022)[37] had been invested in grading the terrain of the Morris estate to make it suitable for racing. A depression at the southeastern end had been filled and rocks at the northern end had to be removed by rock blasting and cutting." - This all happened in 1895?
  • I see the operation of this racetrack is further expounded upon in the next section.
I'm not sure if there's something you want me to do here. If so, let me know.
There is not. I was initially going to comment on the fact that this subsection is so short, but then I realized that "Operation", in a sense, contains all the information that should be in this section. Personally I would have five top-level sections (Description; Geology; History prior to Fleetwood Park; Fleetwood Park operation; Post-closure), but this is fine too. Epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-closure:
  • 1st paragraph: "By the end of that month, the New York Driving Club had met to consider building a new track, with two possible locations under consideration." - I'd change this to something like "By the end of that month, the New York Driving Club had met to consider building a new track, identifying two possible locations", to remove the redundant use of the word "consider".
Reworded.
  • 2nd paragraph: "the club intended to issue bonds." - Do we know why?
The source doesn't say.
  • 2nd paragraph: "Despite these proclamations, by the end of 1898, it was announced that the new track would be built in Yonkers and operated by William H. Clark" - As well, do we know why?
The source does not go into those kinds of details.
  • 3rd paragraph: "This block is now the Clay Avenue Historic District" - This runs counter to MOS:DATED, so I'd say when the district was established instead.
Done
Operation:
  • 1st paragraph: "It argued that the single annual meeting was "not an important meeting", not being part of harness racing's Grand Circuit.[1]: 80  However, the track was admitted to the circuit the following year" - Do we know why it wasn't part of the Grand Circuit for 23 years but was admitted in 1893? Was that related to the Sun's Guide? Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added some material from the existing sources. Doesn't directly address your question, but it's in the ballpark. Oh, and beforey you ask, I intentionally didn't wikilink the city names because WP:SEAOFBLUE and it wouldn't really add anything useful anyway.
  • In the 2nd paragraph, do we have any membership statistics from before 1886 (i.e. in the first half of this racetrack's existence)?
I added a few more years; that's all I could find.
  • 2nd paragraph: "New York Herald" should be italicized. Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
  • 2nd paragraph: "E 164th Street" should be spelled out as "East 164th Street". Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
  • 2nd paragraph: "Bonner Place.." - typo. Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
  • 2nd paragraph: I noticed there are four sentences about Grant, but he's relegated to the second half of the paragraph. If he was so important that a hotel and avenue were named after him, should he have his own paragraph? (In that case, this entire paragraph could be split out into its own section about notable attendees.) Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, dunno. Previous reviewers have been steadfast in pushing me to combine short paragraphs and sections into fewer longer ones. Let me know if you feel strongly about this, otherwise I'm inclined to leave it as is.
Actually, I tend to agree with these previous reviewers. I think you can just leave it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't gone into this in depth, but The New York Times should be italicized in the 4th paragraph.
Done
I know I promised to finish the review today, but unfortunately I'll have to look at the final section tomorrow, since I've been much busier than expected at work. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius:}, OK, I think I've responded to all of your points from this round. RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll have a look later today, or tomorrow, but I'm not really seeing much else to critique. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the confusion, I ran across https://nyti.ms/46awUU8. This is an 1889 article stating, "A resolution to abandon the Grand Circuit was offered, but only received 14 votes". That's 3 years before they were admitted. I don't really have a clue what that means. Maybe it means, "abandon seeking entry to", but that's just speculation. I'll keep digging on that and if I find anything that's reliable, I'll add it to the article. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the last few sections and only have the following comment:
  • Mishaps, 2nd paragraph: "40 stalls were destroyed" - should be "Forty" if you're beginning a sentence with a number
Done.
I see above that it is very difficult to find more recent scholarship about the racetrack (I found this and this. I will support this FAC since it doesn't seem like there's anything we can do about the lack of modern coverage. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

No spotcheck, looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The use of LCCN, OCLC, and ISBN is inconsistent. Ref 1 uses OCLC (understandable, since there's no ISBN), but 2 uses LCCN, and 47 even uses OL. Add all or cut all for consistency
    • Done
  • Ref 11: what's this odd looking ark" number? I've never seen it before- should it be linked? Or is this something I'm just oblivious to? Do enlighten me!
  • Ref 12: If ref 9 has "Library of Congress: Chronicling America" in the via slot, then 12 should too
    • Done
  • The wide page range in ref 20 won't suffice for verifiability, especially since there's a quote; either split it into two and add the individual page numbers, or use Template:Rp
    • Done
  • All the NYT citations to TimesMachine articles need "subscription" in their access parameters
    • Done
  • Ref 44: format website as its title, not as a link
    • @MyCatIsAChonk: I don't understand. "Yonkers Raceway" is the title of the website. Not sure what you're asking me to change.
  • Ref 47: typo in "gossip"
    • Done
  • Why is Google Books linked in some of the citations' via parameters, but not in others?
    • Done
  • Refs 54, 81, 82 don't get a via?
    • Done
  • Ref 76 needs author
    • Done

RoySmith, done, great job MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass - for the Yonkers Raceway, the italicized website name was yonkers-raceway.info, and this was improper. I fixed it- if you oppose, feel free to revert. Also, if you get any extra time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary comment[edit]

My commentary deals more on the positive side from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing perspective rather than from a technical Wikipedia analysis - although I have read through the commentary and corrections and I must say they are thorough and well accepted. I commended the effort that was appropriated to this article and wish that all our horse racing track articles would go through the microscope and be improved. Job well done to all involved.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Serial #[edit]

A recent discussion with Roy reminded me that they had their own candidate here already. Apologies for my tardiness at looking in, which I have been meaning to do since commenting on the article talk page a few weeks ago. My main concern then was the choppiness of the prose and the sentence-long sections/paras. Also, IIRC, a dearth of context and history. That, mind you, appears to have been dealt with, and it looks like some nice stuff has been done to the article since. However, it's a bit late here now, and there's a whisky to wrap oneself around, but I'll look at it again tomorrow and see what's been happening. Serial 17:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Back once again with the Renegade Master.
  • "Pigeon shooting": l/c
  • Link "schist"
  • Repetition of Jerome Park, perhaps link the second, it wouldn't be eggy.
  • Again, Morris Park three times; keep the first occasion, poss. even the second, but the last can be sth like "This course operated..."
  • "In 1899...": the following year
  • Link sulky on its first use.
  • Harlem River Speedway bit: relevance?
    • Trotting races moved to one of two places after Fleetwood Park closed: Yonkers Raceway and the Harlem River Speedway.
  • "The Sun's Guide to New York": should be swapped with the first mention of work, which abbreviated the title.
  • The guide: u/c G, as it's a (shortened title).
  • Repetition of "meeting": suggest "...single annual fixture was "not an important meeting", or equivalent.
    • "Meeting" is the canonical term that's used in horse racing, and the repetition follows the repetition in the source. If it's OK with you, I'd prefer to leave this as is.
  • Indeed, it's tricky to know what to link in the list of cities; perhaps best not to do so, as it would be a pretty subjective editorial choice. Basically, New York should never be linked, whereas Springfield, Mass., should always be (for obvious reasons!)
    • I'm not sure I follow. Linking all of these would be a severe case of WP:SEAOFBLUE, and just linking Springfield would make it stand out oddly. I'm inclined to leave it as is.
  • I think a new starting gun is probably worthy of commas rather than parentheses...
  • In hopes, tighter
    • I don't know what you're referring to here
  • Of course it would be undue to give each of those rich guys a mini-bio, but can a sentence be added showing why The Sun's Guide was justified in its claim; perhaps something like "...all millionaire businessmen and leading members of city society". At the moment the WP:READER only knows they're well-known but not why so.
    • The Sun's Guide is expressing an opinion. I don't see how it's appropriate for us to try to justify why they had that opinion.
  • I assume "bisect" is meant over "dissect"; it's hard to see one road cutting a race track into its component parts!
  • Something instead of "today": see MOS:REALTIME.
    • There's really only two time periods: the old street names that existed before this area was incorporated into the Bronx (100-ish years ago), and those after. MOS:REALTIME is concerned with things that might be true today but not tomorrow. I don't think that's an issue here. I could be more specific ("Across from what as of 2023 is called College Avenue") but that would be silly.
  • If me, "frequented by the jockeys"
  • Is "special day" a quote? If so, WP:MINREF.
  • [Excellent point that amidst the $1000s that were being spent on horses, no one forgot to get their money's worth out of the shite!]
  • "opened in 1873": I think "had opened..." as this is past historic by now.
  • 1873...1893. Tempted to suggest. "Twenty years later..." but.
  • Men dying, horses dying, $1000s worth of damage, and those are just mishaps?! "Accidents" must be more our style, surely (cf WP:EUPH)
    • Maybe, but while the fires were (I assume!) accidental, it just seems odd to put them under the heading of "Accidents". If you feel strongly about this, I'll change it, but lacking that, I'll leave it as is.
As I said, I had most of my say on the talk page; most of this is a comment on the reordering that has occurred and reflection since then. Nice article. Induced me to put on something apt. Like a drunken fuck on a Saturday night / Up came the bottle of smoke. Wooo-oh, etc. Cheers! Serial 16:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, other than as noted above, I've taken care of all of these. RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to @Serial Number 54129 ping. RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 I'm not sure where things stand here. Are you OK with the changes I made or are there further changes you want me to do? RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for belatitudinous response Roy, I'm embracing weekend warrioririty at the moment. I stand by my view that 'Mishaps' is a clear euphemism, but acknowledge that my suggestion of 'Accidents' could be POV; as you say, they may well have been accidental, but actually, we don't know, so we shouldn't be telling the reader in our voice that they were. 'Incidents', though, squares the circle as it covers both meanings. My other main issue is with recentism; as it mentions 'today' in its list of proscribed uses, I assumed it would apply. But my MOS knowledge could always do with a second opinion; paging User:SandyGeorgia who will convince me either way, if she doesn't mind. My other concerns were merely with repetitive prose, use of brackets etc, small beer so fear not. Cheers Serial 13:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidents is good, I've made that change. Let's see what Sandy says. RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been cogitating on this a bit and ended up changing "today's" to "the contemporary" (Special:Diff/1178638288). Does that help? RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure cogitating in public is banned in several states. 'Contemporary' is excellent. Serial 20:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie[edit]

Will drag myself around to this, in the next week. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891 I think at this point, all this is waiting on is a source to text spot check, so perhaps you could concentrate on that? Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's good. I hadn't commented yet because I wasn't finding much wrong with the prose, so can change tack. Expect this tomorrow and please ping relentlessly if not. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, man, you have no idea what peril you place yourself in by encouraging me to ping relentlessly :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ping relentlessly as well? :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Double the pings can only lead me to working twice as fast, right? :D Eddie891 Talk Work 22:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of FAC, I feel obligated to point out, Gog, that you almost certainly can ping. I suspect, however, that you're asking if you may ping? RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I must ask, "May I ping relentlessly, or should I ask permission first before I ping relentlessly?" ;) – Epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No Roy, I think that you have misread that. What I meant was 'I am going to ping relentlessly, it sounds like fun.' :-)) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I hadn't commented yet because I wasn't finding much wrong with the prose". Eddie, could you give me an idea of how much of the prose you got through, to help me to weight that comment? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a whole lot. I wouldn't give it much weight. I am, however, doing the spotcheck today, though if it makes you, @RoySmith, and @Epicgenius feel better to ping while it's going on, feel free. It makes me feel popular to get lots of notifications. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Eddie891/Fleetwood Park Racetrack spotcheck, I'm leaving my spot check opinions (and other unsolicited notes) over here. Gotta run to the doctor's, but should be back to this before too long. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting here for clarity. Roy, I have a generally positive impression of source to text faithfulness. It doesn't seem like anything has been intentionally misrepresented, and there are no larger concerns like copyvio. However, in the 25 ish sources I checked, there were two mistakes, two missing citations, and one spot that needed more sources (a couple other minor points which are neither here nor there). I can't say the source spotcheck is a pass yet, because, imv, to say that is me signing off that it is my impression that every source supports all the text. Unfortunately, I can't say that yet.
    However, you have been quick to respond and collaborative. So if it works for you I'm happy to slog work through all the other sources on the spotcheck page. I've done it before, on a much longer article. Let me know. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Go for it. RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Eddie, are you sill working on this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm back after being busy this weekend, so hoping to get there soon. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eddie891 could I ask for a status update; are there any additional problems you've found that I should be working on? RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than me being completely unable to manage my time this week? No. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    just two remaining points now. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass on source spotcheck. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Adding placeholder, will be finished probably tomorrow. JennyOz (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, were you still planning to comment? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian and RoySmith, yep, just have to look at changes since I did review. Sorry for delay. JennyOz (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith, thanks for this interesting article. There are lots of minor comments, suggestions and questions here. I do not usually make changes when reviewing FACs. I tend to be brief within my comments so pls let me know if you need any clarifications.

Top matter

  • Reorder to: Short des / good article / lang format / date format

Info box

  • A Good Send Off - as a titled work should be italicised, though perhaps complete the title ie add ",_ Go!" I'm not sure whether attribution is necessary? (MOS:CREDITS)
  • same image - in its Alt, change "carriages" to carts or sulkies. Change "riders" to drivers
  • has Date opened as June 8, 1871 which is the Daters brothers' date but article has New York Driving Club starting 1881 and uses the Category 1881 establishments?
    • The racetrack and the club are distinct entities, with their own start dates. It's like the difference between The New York Yankees and Yankee Stadium.
      • I'm still confused - you are saying Ibox relates to location but article category 1881 est relates to club? So who named it specifically "Fleetwood Park Racetrack", Dater bros or NYDC... or, should article name be Fleetwood Park racetrack? I'm fine with staying confused, it's quite normal for me! JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • The races were a popular form - but what races? may need to say 'The races held there were a ...'
    • Done, but I'm not convinced it's a positive change. We already know we're talking about a race track from the previous sentence. What other races could we possibly be referring to other than the ones held at that track?
  • drawing crowds as large as 10,000 from - spectators
  • The one-mile (1.6 km) course described an unusual shape - as an?
  • owner and publisher of the New York Ledger - add italics
  • brother David, who at one point served as president - not sure about "at one point". How about 'who was a president of the club.'
    • I changed it to "at one time", which I think properly expresses the temporal nature of things.
  • the track failed to turn a profit - idiomatic? the track was unprofitable
    • If you insist, but I think it's OK the way it is.
  • annually via financial assessments - from not via?

Description

  • adjacent to Sheridan Ave - spell Avenue (it's the only time it's abbreviated, except in a caption which is fine, article doesn't abbreviate Street anywhere)
  • The clubhouse, a French Second Empire-style building - swap hyphen to en dash (MOS:SUFFIXDASH)
  • had a view of the track from above - ? meaning elevated? do sources say it was multi-story?
  • A 1885 map shows it - An 1885
  • if run counter-clockwise - was that the normal direction? ie why "if"? perhaps 'four to the left and one to the right, in a counter-clockwise direction
    • I haven't been able to find any sources which specify which direction it was run. It's reasonable to assume it was always run in the same direction and that direction was counter-clockwise, but there's no source for that.
  • from which they made connections via horse-drawn coaches - (there exist on WP some who take offence at the use of "via" in such cases!) in or by?
    • I think those people are silly, but I changed it to "by" to appease them.
      • Yep I agree but there are certain words that trigger certain editors and sometimes it's just easier to avoid those words to ward off the "fixers" JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • were considered as possible sites for an 1892 World's Fair.[17][18] The fair was to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus arriving in the New World. In 1890, however, the US Congress designated Chicago as the host city for the World's Columbian Exposition - best to add 'held in 1893' seeing a different year (unless "1892" is a typo. I can't access the two NYT refs.) Also "possible" is redundant?
    • I'm not sure there's anything to do here. Both of the sources cited say 1892. Our World's Columbian Exposition says, Dedication ceremonies for the fair were held on October 21, 1892, but the fairgrounds were not actually opened to the public until May 1, 1893, but I think it makes sense to just go with what the sources say.
  • tobogganing image caption - "Wood engraving on paper. 1888." should be a comma after "paper" rather than period?
  • same image "by Thure Thulstrup" - insert de per image and Thure de Thulstrup

Geology

  • geology of the region, J. D. Dana described - link James Dwight Dana
  • Quote has been superseded by Blockquote Template:Quote?
  • The limestone area No. 2 ... joins that - format ellipsis
  • region of Fleetwood Park ... The northern - format ellipsis
  • extremity ... two valleys - format ellipsis
  • then northward ... The high land - format ellipsis
    • I don't understand what you mean by "format ellipsis". Isn't MOS:ELLIPSIS saying to do what I've got?

History

  • Horses had been raced near the Fleetwood Park location - is "near" the right word when it goes on to say "it may have occupied the site which eventually became Fleetwood Park"? perhaps 'had been raced in the Fleetwood Park area'
  • Monticello was originally chosen as the name - quote marks per below?
  • were being placed which referred to the development as Fleetwood. - I am not sure about MOS:WORDSASWORDS but should this particular use of Fleetwood be italicized or quoted?
  • with a $2,500 (equivalent to $88,000 in 2022)[37] reduction in rent - annual rent?
    • Annual would be a reasonable assumption, but the source doesn't actually say that, so it would be a guess.
  • led to the track being closed the next year - the last year mentioned is 1896 so "next year" would be 1897, elsewhere closure is dated as January 1, 1898
    • The January 1, 1989 date is for "permanently closed". My understanding is that it was closed after the last race in 1897, but still held out some hope it would reopen, until Jan 1 1898 when it was made clear that it never would.
  • $5,300,000 in 2022)[37], the club intended - remove comma
  • the new track would be built in Yonkers and - link Yonkers?
  • side of the Harlem River, It was intended - swap comma to period
  • sulkies, ridden horses, and bicycles - maybe horseback riders instead of ridden horses?
    • "horseback riders" is indeed the phrase used in the source, but WP:CLOP.
  • Harlem River Speedway - has a redirect page. Even though it goes to the Drive article linked below, consider link for future?
  • a $5 million bread - format ellipsis
    • As above, I don't understand what this means.
  • By the 1910's, motorcar racing - remove apostrophe
  • In the mid 20th century it was - hyphen mid-20th
  • Within a few years of Fleetwood closing, - possessive gerund, I think should be "Within a few years of Fleetwood's closing,"
  • to their newly-purchased property - remove adverbial hyphen
  • Warren C. Dickerson-designed - swap hyphen to endash (MOS:SUFFIXDASH)
  • (twenty-eight Warren C. Dickerson-designed semi-detached houses, three apartment buildings, and one private residence) - Did Dickerson only design the semi-detached houses? If so, perhaps add 'plus' after "houses" to avoid ambiguity
  • first official street map of Morrisania published in 1871 -ambiguous, needs comma after Morrisania (ie not the first published for that year)

Operation

  • clubhouse image alt "raised on a earthen embankment" - an earthen
  • program image alt "Cover from printed programme for "Old Fleetwood" Grand" - US spellng program?
  • (one source says 1.25-mile (2.01 km)) - that might be better for flow if made a note? (and lede only mentions the one mile version)
    • I actaully tried to make this a note, but ran into technical problems getting a citation inside another citation. I'm not sure if it's a limitation of the template editor or the template, or something else. If you can find a way to make it work, I'm happy to do it.
  • oval by the New York Driving Club (NYDC) - misplaced/unused acronym? It is only used once? eg in next para the full name is used again
  • "For a time ... the most famous trotting track in the country" - format ellipsis
    • As above
  • up to nine clubs: PIttsburgh, - decap letter I
  • included upgrading the grand stand - consistency, two other places use one word ie grandstand (except quote)
  • A new starter, Frank Walker, - I can't access all of the NYT source but if the problem they were endeavouring to solve is related to what is discussed here Starting gate#Harness racing, maybe link it?
    • I agree that's likely, but the source just says "The engagement of Frank Walker as starter has given general satisfaction.", so I think adding the link would be WP:OR.
  • Members of the club included - Notable members?
    • I'm always hesitant to say "notable" because it sounds like the author trying too hard to justify that the article passes WP:GNG, which is indeed what goes on at WP:AfD. If you feel strongly about this, I'll be happy to make the change.
      • Well as it stands it is slightly ambiguous ie could be read as they were the only members? You could say noted/known/some. We don't have to justify GNG they are notable, we have solid articles on them? More like in some lists we say only notable (blue linked) people/items are allowed. But, no, I don't feel strongly one way or the other. JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leonard Jerome - remove line break from end of following ref
    • I don't see what you're getting at.
  • Robert Bonner, owner and publisher of the New York Herald and trotting - Bonner owned the Ledger not NYH?
    • Good catch, thank you for spotting that.
  • "Grant was a skilled horseman who could ride, drive and train them as required." Sorry but two problems here. The link is a bit easteregg-ish? :Second problem is that there is no antecedent for "them" . Although it seems obvious from the word "horseman", grammatically it's amiss.
Perhaps reconstruct to 'Grant's skill with horses was well-known; he could ride, drive and train them as required.' or
'Grant was a recognized skilled horseman. He could ride, drive and train horses as required.' or similar tweaking.
  • frequented by the jockeys. - drivers not jockeys?
    • I agree "drivers" is probably more accurate, but the source uses "jockeys" ("Opposite his house was the Grant Hotel, where the jockeys often stayed.")
  • held seven world record times set - hyphenate compound modifier ie world-record times
  • prize money record - prize-money record
  • held a series of world record times - hyphenate
  • owned by [[John Malcolm Forbes|John Malcom Forbes]] - why have incorrect spelling visible? Is it because NYT ref 75 has a typo? If so, silently correct per MOS:TYPOFIX? The second ref 76 HoF has correct spelling.
  • Major expenses were ground rent - insert annual?
    • I think "annual" would make it sound like this was a recurring figure, year after year.
  • stall rent ($4,404, Inflation|index=US|value=4408 - which figure?
  • labor ($4,178, equivalent to $136,000 in 2022) but $4,404, equivalent to $13,000 in 2022 - ah, typo in year, 1983 should be 1893
  • racing track in Hartford, Connecticut - add geocomma after Connecticut
  • Two weeks later Joseph Simpson explained - ID him eg journalist/reporter and add 'in the same publication' (B&S)

Images

  • In OpenStreetMap caption, remove space before comma at "Morris Park , 7"
  • Grandstand and clubhouse. The Horseman, September 26, 1889. - titled work so italics
  • Grand circuit program, 1896 (New York) - add cap Circuit for consistency

Sources

That's it for now. I think I may have a couple more to come, will doublecheck my notes. Thanks for your patience!JennyOz (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except as noted in-line above, all of these have been addressed. RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz are you OK with the fixes I made so far, or are there additional changes you're looking for? RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RoySmith, coincidentally your ping arrived as I was doing some tweaks. Let me know if you have any questions about them. Yep your fixes good and thanks for clarifying some things for me. I do have a couple more minor questions and comments. Nothing to stop me adding the S word but it's late here so will add them tomorrow.
When I previewed my changes, script warnings appeared: One or more {{cite report}} templates have maintenance messages; and One or more {{cite book}} templates have maintenance messages;. (Whatever is amiss pre-existed my edits.)
I hope you aren't finding the reviewing process too frustrating! Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've seen the template warnings. I haven't been able to figure out what they mean, but they don't seem to be causing any problems so I haven't worried about them. If anybody reading this has a deeper understanding of the template magic, I'd be grateful for input. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked at WT:Citing sources#Citation template warnings? RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! I'm not v good with code issues. JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last tidbits...

  • Not sure if you were aware of this image. Obviously you may have seen and dismissed it but thought I should mention. JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember if I'd seen that particular one, but there's no shortage of them. The article used to have more, but I thought it was getting image-heavy and cut a few out to avoid layout problems. Maybe a gallery, or a {{Commons category}} would be useful? RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the program image and Ref 41, it was also known as Driving Club of New York - not worth an aka? JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again, I just made a couple more minor tweaks. have also added some reply comments above - nothing to fuss about, but sometimes it's good for future for you to be able to say "this was discussed and clarified during the article's FAC review process." Wth that said I am happy to support promotion. This is a comprehensive article which goes to ensure this piece of Bronx history lives on. Nice working with you, JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FAC coordinators: is there anything else I need to be doing here? RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks pretty good. One of us coords will go over it next. FrB.TG (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Special:Diff/1182498573, as far as I can tell, the word "spectators" has ben included, removed, put back, and removed again, all in response to successive reviewers' suggestions :-) RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem redundant to me with "crowd" in there... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fleetwood_Park_Racetrack/archive1&oldid=1182546961"