Talk:Daily fantasy sports/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 22:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ  -US 22:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Peer review tool
 * Nothing that will stand in the way of GA


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * Bad news Wikipedia - http://nilsenreport.ca/2016/02/26/strictly-stats-nba-dfs-picks-results/ copied the entire lead and presented it as their own. The article is dated 2-26 and the lead was in this article prior to that date so no copyright violation in this case
 * Looking at the rest of the hits, it is mainly the quotes it detects, which look to be in order. ✅


 * Disambiguation links
 * No issues ✅


 * External links
 * Reference 48 needs registration, that needs to be indicated in the citation
 * Reference 86 needs registration, that needs to be indicated in the citation
 * Reference 92 has a download issue?

Well Written

 * Lead
 * "competition, and" does not need a comma
 * "users pay an entry fee" - I think "players" is the better term here
 * "prizes, while" does not need the comma
 * "such as most prominently" simplify to "most prominently"


 * Gameplay
 * "remainder lose" I believe it should be "remainders", plural
 * "they must beat" - since it's not a fight out about "defeat" or "score more points than"?
 * "(including college football and the NFL)" if you change it to "(both college football and the NFL)" you don't have "including" used back to back,
 * "as League of Legends", perhaps clarify with "as the League of Legends online game" or words to that effect?


 * Early examples
 * "but later shut down." - do you have a year you can put on that?


 * Growth
 * ", and realizing" perhaps use "when he realized"
 * "same month, the National" I think you don't need the comma
 * "The company also planned to expand the scope of its MLB partnership." this sentence says nothing really.
 * The sentence starting with "In October 2014" should be moved up so it's chronological and comes before 2015


 * Mainstream popularity
 * "The mainstream growth of daily fantasy sports heading into 2015 was credited to several factors, including the convenience of the format in comparison to season-length fantasy sports, aggressive marketing campaigns focusing on prospective cash prizes (with some contests featuring advertised cash prices of up to $1 million), as well as their availability on mobile devices—which compliments technologically-oriented lifestyles." - that's quite a long sentence, can it be reworded as perhaps two sentences?
 * "yearly, and that" does not need the comma
 * "FanDuel and DraftKings also expanded" the use of the word "also" would imply others had done it first, but the article does not state that?


 * Increased scrutiny
 * Is August considered "late" in the year? I would think it more like "mid-2015"
 * "lawsuit was settled out of court" - I assume it was settled without the details being divulged?


 * Classification as gambling
 * typo "activitiy" should of course be "activity"
 * What does "IAmA" stand for?


 * Legal definitions of skill and chance
 * "statutes are found" - does not need the word "are"
 * "found in Title 18, such as the Federal Wire Act," - sounds like "Title 18" is in a lot of acts? but this is Title 18 of the Federal Wire Act specifically right? If so then "such as" is not appropriate.


 * UIGEA carve-out
 * using the term nor in the "banks, nor cover" seems to reflect back to something I am not seeing, I do not see the "neither" portion of the "neither/nor" structure.


 * Self-imposted restrictions
 * Title typo - should be "imposed"


 * Legal challenges
 * "Due to the uncertain legality of DFS under local gambling laws in their opinions" makes it sound like it was totally their choice - article states that some were directly illegal and others were "clearly unfriendly", not what the article states.
 * "Attorney General Lisa Madigan ruled under" should be "ruled that under"
 * "The sites may continue to operate pending the result of court hearings." since time has passed please state it categorically, they either did or did not operate.
 * "arguments square with existing Texas law" too informal a phrase.
 * "He also, however", reoder to "However, he also stated"


 * New York ruling and lawsuit
 * "they may continue" should be "they could continue"
 * "On March 21, 2016, DraftKings and FanDuel agreed to cease offering paid games in the state of New York, and abide by the results of an appellate court hearing scheduled to occur in September 2016, assuming that DFS legislation is not passed by then, which will determine if the services must pay restitution." that is a little unclear, can you tighten up the language, perhaps less "run-on"ish?

Sources/verifiable

 * I am seeing references that do not list the date of the article, any time the article has a date listed it should be listed in the reference to ensure we have the appropriate time reference
 * I see various sources that do not have an author listed in the reference but there is one listed on the article. Should always be included when it is known.
 * In places a source is listed as "Re/code" and others simply as "Recode" yet it's the same website. Be consistent please.
 * Is "LegalSportsReport" a Reliable Source?
 * Reference 67 is a 14 page PDF, can we get a specific page reference so we don't have to trawl through all 14 pages to find the citation
 * The rest are looking reliable and other than formatting are fine.

Broad in coverage

 * I believe so yes

Neutral

 * So starting out by using the term "rake-off" and then linking to an article that defines it as "a bribe" is not really a good way to stay neutral. Alright that's a much better explanation, thank you.  MPJ  -US 21:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the term "it has been argued" or "it has been debated" without any qualifiers is considered weasel words

Stable

 * I am not seeing a significant amount of edit warring. it's a topic that's in the news a lot and seems to draw in a lot of people adding and removing stuff but not what i would consider a content war. I am glad to see that there was a dedicated effort to take the "advertising" elements out of it, not turning it into a directory of DFS site.

Illustrated / Images

 * None, shame


 * - I have completed my review for now and I am putting the article on hold for up to 7 days to allow improvements to be made to it. Let me know if you need more time or have questions etc.  MPJ  -US 23:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On the reliability of LegalSportsReport, the writer is an adviser to the gambling industry and has been, as documented here, cited by a large number of reliable sources. Secondly, on the rake-offs, I actually amended the Wiktionary page to include a reference to a rake in regards to gambling, but also discovered we actually had an article on the practice as it relates to poker. ViperSnake151   Talk  23:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - I am good with the LegalSportsReport source then and the change in links is appropriate, thank you.  MPJ  -US 14:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I addressed more of these issues. But I object to the objection to "square with Texas law" as being "informal"; it is part of a quotation. ViperSnake151   Talk  18:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed you removed it anyway? Are you ready for me to review it again or is there anything else to address?  MPJ  -US 23:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * - I really have not seen much activity since April 6, five days and I see some issues that have not been either fixed or addressed. I am just wondering where you're at with this? if it hits seven days of no activity and no input from you I will consider closing it
 * Do you know any automated tools for fixing up/filling in fields in citations? ViperSnake151   Talk  19:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No unfortunately not.  MPJ  -US 22:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone appears to have dealt with the references for us. Thank you, User:SSTflyer! ViperSnake151   Talk  05:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh awesome, and apparently there is a tool called reFill, did not know that. - is that the last of the necessary improvements you believe is needed?  MPJ  -US  08:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * - Looking at this I believe you've successfully addressed all issues. Passing it. Congratulations.  MPJ  -US 12:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)