Talk:Virginia Lottery/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found, quad and unlinked as there is no article on the meaning implied here.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lottery tickets are sold through local retailers;[5] it is prohibited by law from selling tickets directly through its headquarters, and from selling over the internet This sentence is ungrammatical, the "it" needs to be specified.

   There are a large number of single or two sentence paragraphs. These need consolidating as per WP:MoS

   The lead makes no mention of the security or compulsive gambling sections. It also makes no mention of the history of G-Tech involvement.

   then-Gov. Timothy Kaine Abbreviations are not in accordance with MoS

   GTECH had made a programming error which caused the terminals to incorrectly identify on tickets that certain number combinations were winners when they were not. "incorrectly identify on tickets that certain number combinations were winners when they were not."? This is almost gibberish! Please rewrite in English.

   In the lead, Credit cards cannot be used to purchase lottery tickets.. I don't find this mentioned in the artcile. The lead should be a succinct executive summary of the article. Please read WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The 1849 Code of Virginia included a prohibition of gambling. needs a citation.

   Consistency - the titles of citations should be in sentence case, not all upper case.

   Ref #46[2] needs publisher attribution.

   What makes ref #37[3] a reliable source? This cite also needs publisher attribution. Same for ref #43[4]

   Mahalo is a wiki, what is your judgment about it being a reliable source?

   Wikis are NOT reliable sources. - removed

   Snopes is a recognized source about urban legends.

   I guess it is reliable enough as it shows its sources.

   Ref #9[5] needs page numbers

   No page number are apparent. What would you suggest?

   You could add the chapter number. - added section names

   ref #44[6] needs publisher attribution

   Some critics[who?] claim that instant winner games do more to cater to the needs of compulsive gamblers than do conventional lotteries where the outcome is not known for some time. needs attribution. - done

   Although the Lottery prohibits sales to underage players and seeks to address compulsive gambling, the Lottery's general advertising repeatedly contacts this population. needs a cite. - done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   However, in June 2008, Scott Hoover, a Business professor at Washington and Lee University sued the lottery for $85 million alleging that it failed to stop retail sales immediately upon the awarding of the last top prize. What was the result of the lawsuit? - that was over two years ago.

   case is still pending, updated it with two sources.

   Of this total, the Lottery generated $439.1 million, or 32.1%, for public education, 57.2% was paid to players in the form of prizes, 5.6% was paid to retailers as sales commissions, and 5.4% covered the Lottery Department's operational expenses. Inconsistency in figures, the total percentages are 100.3%

   Is any information available about private companies involved in running lottery machines, printing tickets, etc.?

   Added paragraph in History section about GTECH including prior bribery controversies

   The article badly some independent commentary, from reliable third party sources, e.g. quality press, scholarly journals, on the lottery, its effects on the state and on players. - done

   Generally there is rather too much detail on the individual games. A summary style is needed in the Games section.

   Those games with separate articles are covered in summary form. There is not enough on the others to warrant subsidiary articles. What do you specifically suggest? Racepacket (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

   I think a one line summary is sufficient for each game. We don't need this excessive detail of games which may well change frequently. Also the subsections could then be removed. I believe this was raised in an earlier review. - collapsed non-notable games

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is little critical commentary, as noted above.

   Have found a Washington Post article

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):

   No images used.Y

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for addressing my concerns. I am now happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time for a detailed review, I will work on addressing your concerns. Racepacket (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)