 | 2017 Vegas eRace has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2017 Vegas eRace article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "2017 Vegas eRace" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
.JPG)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2017 Vegas eRace/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
This one looks very solid. JAGUAR 19:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- "The total prize fund was $1 million (the largest in eSports racing history as of 2017)" - this sounds like a worthy mention for the lead
- Suggestion noted; fact now in the lead. MWright96 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- "and utilized virtual identical cars" - wrong order: and utilized identical virtual cars (otherwise it sounds like virtually identical cars)
- "Since no G-forces could be felt by drivers during the race, Cloud Sport got around this by programming the vehicles to respond to the inertia created by sudden acceleration and this made for a realistic driving experience: vehicles tilted onto three wheels during sharp cornering, and their performance deteriorated if the cars sustained damage" - this could be split into two sentences
- ", then maybe they are pretty good!" Hans-Jürgen Abt" - missing full stop
- No dead links
- Ref 12 has an extra space in it (I think)? Something is awry with the fomatting
- The copy-editor had the same issue with formatting and something I could do apart from remove part of the title. MWright96 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Excellent article! It is well written, comprehensive and very engaging. I would recommend submitting this for FAC in the future as it stands a very good chance. I'll place this on hold until those minor nitpicks are clarified. 
JAGUAR 14:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Jaguar: That's all of the points addressed above. MWright96 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Brilliant work as always. Let's promote this.
JAGUAR 19:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Brilliant work as always. Let's promote this.