Talk:Caesars Palace 2000/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 15:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing article... full review comments should be done within a day or two. bridies (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1.

Suggest (and just a suggestion) rewriting: "Interplay announced that they were working on a title for the Dreamcast, eventually announcing it for the PC and PlayStation as well. It was known to be a 3D simulation of gambling and to have traditional casino games in it." as it's a bit insipid.
- Done-SCB '92 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...verified by William Bertram, Ph.D". Since this guy doesn't have an article, it's not clear who this is or what it implies; should be changed to "verified by a Ph.D in mathematics" or whatever he is. Ditto in the main body, he should be named, but it should also be clarified who this guy is and what his qualifications are (Google suggests he's a mathematician, but otherwise he might be a gambling expert or pundit, or just an official from Caesars Palace; it's not clear.)
- Done-SCB '92 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead needs to summarise the main critical commentary.
- Done-SCB '92 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2.

There's no need to string together citations from the same source if several quotes/claims from it follows one after the other. i.e. in the development section, you can just give 1 cite to source 8 at the end of the first paragraph, and 1 cite to source 9 after the second. I know some baulk at paragraphs with just one citation at the end, but those are just a few sentences. Ditto in the reception section, you should just put one cite to 7, then 2, then 3, then 12, after each section taken from it, rather than each individual quote. Since the claims are directly attributed to the author in the text anyway, there's unlikely to be any confusion.
- Done-SCB '92 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good otherwise, at this point. Will check specific claims against the sources later.
Release dates: for example, the infobox gives the NA Dreamcast release date as 24 Sept; allgame gives it as 21 Sept; IGN gives it as 20 Sept. What's up with that? bridies (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I got the date from GameFaqs (an unreliable source). But since two reliable sources are stating two different dates, I don't know what to do in these situations. Should I change it to the earliest given date (20th Sept)?-SCB '92 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the two sources are of similar reliability, I'd say changing it to just "September" and leaving out the day is the best option. bridies (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done-SCB '92 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked earlier to save time, but I think there's the same issue with the other dates. For the PC version, IGN gives 30 June, Allgame gives 13 June, article gives 29 June. Suggest the same solution for that one too... It'd be nice if you could check the Dreamcast EU and PS release dates in the relevant RS reviews. bridies (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done changed it to June 2000; IGN and Allgame didn't state the release dates of the European releases, but GameSpot (another reliable source) did. GameSpot has the exact same release dates as GameFAQs, which were in the article. Allgame, GameFAQs, and GameSpot all state the NA release date for the PlayStation version as June 29, 2000; but IGN just states it as July 2000 (a different month). Since there are 2 reliable sources that have the same dates while 1 reliable source has a different date, I'll leave it as it is.-SCB '92 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, GameFAQs takes its release dates from GameSpot (or vice-versa), which obviously explains why they're the same. They're pretty infamous around the WP:VG project for being off when it comes to dates for old games (a lot of discussion in the archives about that, methinks). Still, if Allgame agrees with a GameSpot date, that's probably OK. bridies (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3

While the detail, breadth and balance of the reception section is good, there are only 3 publications used. Looking around, it seems very few publications actually reviewed this game. However, I did manage to find the Computer and Video Games review so suggest including that at least. Russia's Absolute Games also has a review. You might try to extract some snippets and the score from that.
- Done-SCB '92 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4.

Neutral, except that the substantial negative commentary is not summarised in the lead (nor the positive). See above.
- Done-SCB '92 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5.

Stable

6.

Images and FURs - which I just beefed up myself - are adequate. bridies (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, assuming the release dates are now fine - have also checked out some sample quotes - the issues would appear to all be fixed. Pass. bridies (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]