Talk:Aces and eights (blackjack)/GA1

GA Review

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

1. Style of writing needs work:
   1. The second person narrative style (such as: "If you are dealt a pair of eights you have to deal with a total of sixteen which is ...") needs to be rewritten. (see WP:YOU)
   2. Text such as "However, since sixteen of the other fifty cards are worth ten and four are worth eleven. There is a strong chance of getting at least an eight with either or both split cards. Eighteen or Nineteen is a much stronger hand than a sixteen." needs to be rewritten.
2. The explanation of why these strategies are suggested needs more work. This article is tagged as part of the mathemetics wikiproject, but there is no probabilistic explanation of the strategy.

—G716 <^T·_C> 01:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A few problems initially, but I've fixed them.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It's part of WikiProject Mathematics and was also nominated under the Mathematics category for GA, but never explains the subject in mathematical terms. It mentions "Probabilistic research of expected value scenarios" but does not go into detail about the numbers.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

   Only has one image; on the other hand, I couldn't think of a plausible reason for this article to be illustrated. I've replaced the four aces with the dead man's hand, which I think would be better.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   My only issue with it is that it should be expanded to include the mathematical concepts surrounding the strategy. If that's added, it'll be looking pretty good.

   None of my sources go into these mathematics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Best, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, for the "Four Horsemen," it would be best if we got rid of the red links. Our options are:

1. create an article on Four Horsemen (blackjack), redirect the names of the people to the article, and replace the part with

   Blackjack's "Four Horsemen" (Roger Baldwin, Wilbert Cantey, Herbert Maisel and James McDermott) determined ...

2. create an article on each of the four men
3. remove the links altogether

Which option we choose will depend on the notability of these four men. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I would say that looking at the sources, option #1 is the best. The sources definitely show that they are notable, but not outside the context of the Four Horsemen. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, but I will choose the third option. I am trying to beef up Cato June, I have Blackstone Library at GAR, I have 4 PRs going on, I have Inauguration of Barack Obama at FAC. I have live content disputes going on regardin gDemi's Birthday Suit and Joanne Gair. I can not take responsibility for more content right now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Turns out, perhaps mathematical formulae are not required. Of the sources I've found, all of them say that a computer was used to calculate the odds, so it's probably unfeasible to post the actual calculations. I've added the end result for the expected value, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

O.K. so how are we doing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:G716 (who posted above); not getting any luck there (see contribs). He's usually a pretty active user, but for some reason he hasn't showed up for the last three days. I guess we'll wait first, and then decide what to do. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at the edits since his comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Passed

Looks like G716 is gone? Oh well. I've taken another careful look at the article and believe that it is good enough to pass. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)