Talk:Caesars Palace 2000/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hammerbrodude (talk · contribs) 03:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. Per request at WP:VG, I'll be reviewin' this here article today for the status of Good Article. Looking at the history section, it seems you've been hard at work preparing for this; so I applaud your determination. As you're likely aware, there's a bunch of regulations required to be met before the status can be granted, which are listed at WP:GA? Ah, I'll get on with it.

Quick-Fail: Passes all five quick-fail criteria.


 * 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):
 * The article is worded a bit awkwardly in several places, and there are a few terms that could be wikified for enhanced clarity for those who do not understand video games and/or casinos. There isn't anything particularly bad, but there are several little things and they add up to enough to be grating.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are many sources, but most of them seem to be from the same three sites: namely, the ones you've chosen to pick reviews from. However, there are several quotes that lack inline citations, and several claims that could use citation. It would be nice if you could find one or two more sites, too, although I appreciate the fact that every site currently listed is reliable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It covers the topic well enough. I couldn't really ask for more information from the given structure.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No obvious bias, as far as I can tell.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * This is a fairly old game, and as a result, its contents are not likely to be subject to too much turmoil. It's also not the most major of games in the eyes of most, so it passes section five with flying colors.
 * 1) 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):
 * Caesars-Palace-2000-Dreamcast.jpg needs a somewhat more detailed Fair Use rationale, but this section is fine.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Though it's close, I'm afraid I can't let this article be promoted just yet. It has definite potential, however: fix a few issues with strange wording (try reading the article aloud, and fixing anything that sounds odd), and sprinkle citations more liberally across the article. With these two issues fixed, I would have no real issues with this article.

It's been a pleasure reviewing this article, and I certainly know far more about the subject than I did before. I hope you undertake the necessary actions required for this article to be promoted successfully, there aren't that many, and with unwavering determination, you could honestly have most of these issues fixed within a week. Hammerbrodude (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)