Wikipedia

Talk:PokerTracker/GA2

< Talk:PokerTracker
Latest comment: 14 years ago by ThaddeusB in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago32 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewing article now, comments to follow later today --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments

edit

Unfortunately, the PokerTracker article appears to fall short of the good article criteria in a number of way. The good news is the problems should be reasonably easy to fix.

Major issues
  • The main problem is that the article suffers from choppy prose. Sentences don't flow together very well and at times the article jumps around from topic to topic.
    • Often this is caused by unnecessary wordiness. For example the products section starts, "The PokerTracker software company has analysis software editions named..." The information is this sentence is better handled by something like "PokerTracker offers software designed to help analysis one's poker play. Products include PokerTracker 3 and PokerTracker Holdem v2 for Texas hold 'em, PokerTracker Omaha for Omaha hold 'em, and PokerTracker Stud for Stud poker."
      • Go through the article and try to reduce wordiness & split sentences apart when needed
        • I think you are missing the point of the sentence above. PokerTracker is both the name of a software company and several software programs. Thus, the sentence is using extra words to make clear what PokerTracker means in the particular context. Are you sure given this ambiguity that the words above are unnecessary?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
        • Secondly, I have been through a WP:PR in hopes of getting advice on problematic verbiage. I truly am presenting about the best content that I am able. I will attempt to revisit it, but would prefer to work with you here or have you come along with me to PR for another go at it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
          • I did understand the point of the sentence, but it was pretty hard to read as originally written.
    • Try and reduce to feel of "jumping around" by increasing the use of transitional words/phrases and reorder some material as needed.
      • Although this article is not the best prose, adding optional words is against the advice of some of the more prominent editorial influences around here such as User:Tony1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
        • I was looking for a reorganization with a few transitional words to connect ideas when needed. Take a look at what I did & let me know what you think. (I could be off base here, but I only meant a few more words in some spots - and a few less in others. What a wrote above didn't accurate convey what I meant, sorry.)
  • The lead especially reads choppily - try and combine such sentences and/or leave some details out
  • Along the same lines, the paragraphs seem to randomly jump form one topic to another. Try to reorder them so all the "technical" information is together, all the "descriptive" information is together, and all the "public response" information is together
  • The CNET quote should appear in the body of the article, as well as the lead. This might be a bit picky, but the lead shouldn't contain any info not found in the article.
Minor issues
  • Left-aligned images (or in this case textboxes) shouldn't be placed at the start of a section
    • You are incorrect on policy on this one. I think you are referring to MOS:IMAGES#Images, which says that left aligned images should not be placed directly under a level three header. In this case it is under a level two header as is permitted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
      • OK, I thought is applied to all sections, not just L3 ones - my mistake.
    • Additionally, the section is over crowded with images IMO. I would suggest dropping the "tournament summary" box as it doesn't really add anything.
      • People who are veterans of poker may feel this adds nothing. A person like me who just got active in April had no idea what these looked like. Basically, we are talking about one of the two types of data used by PokerTracker to produce the database of info. I do not see why it would improve the article to hide either of the only two types of data used by the program.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
        • My thought here is that 1) a tournament summary and a hand history are not all that different to begin with and 2) a user of the software might never even look at the underlying file so it is not all the essential to the reader's understanding of what the software does. That said, having both isn't a "deal breaker" my any means.
  • If the game data in the example box is real, it should be changed to fake data for privacy reasons
    • Can you cite policy. I have never been asked to remove true and valid content from wikipedia. When you say game data are you referring to the final image of a game in progress. This is a screenshot. Obviously, it contains data from a game that actually occurred. It would take extensive photoshopping to remove all the names. However, since all the names are aliases, what you are asking me to do is to provide aliases for the aliases I believe. This makes no sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
      • I meant in the text boxes, but it probably isn't important.
  • "Summary" is not a very good section heading - it should be renamed something more specific and the information in it split appropriately
  • "PokerTracker is a tool that professionals are never without because it enables them to constantly calculate situational optima." is pretty POVy as written - it needs reworded or dropped.
  • "The PokerTracker company is well-known for its PokerAce HUD software" - actually it is known for the PT software and the HUD secondarily. Perhaps change "well-known" to "also known"
  • If such information can be found, a brief history of the company and/or software would be worth including
  • The "use and legality" section is a bit POV pushy to me, in particular:
  • "Marbella Slim of the Daily Star explained the HUD by using the analogy of the data streams in the vision of Terminator famously portrayed by Arnold Schwarzenegger." - I don't understand what this sentence is trying to tell me; it certainly doesn't help me understand what the HUD does. Also, if it stays in some some it needs a cite
  • "An application software (known as an app) for the iPod Touch and iPhone exists under the name "Poker Tracker" that is not confirmed to be in any way related to this software company.[14]" - I don't think this sentence is needed or adds anything.
Non-issues
  • Facts in the lead don't need a cite unless they are a direct quote so feel free to change that if you want
  • The article uses the "quote". format instead of "quote." format. The former is used primarily in British English and the later in American English. The article seems to be primary American English, so you might want to change it - however, either is correct so no change is necessary.
    • Actually, it is not a British or American thing. In American english, when you quote an entire passage, its ending period belongs inside the quotes, but when you quote part of a passage it belongs outside. E.G.,
      • TonyTheTiger said "Actually, it is not a British or American thing." or TonyTheTiger denied it is a "British or American thing".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
        • Not to quibble over nothing, but in my understanding "correct" usage varies by style guide. In Britain it is generally "in or out based on the context" whereas in America it is generally "always inside."
Things that are good
  • Appropriate use of infobox
  • Good use of internal links
  • Citations are used properly and in the correct quantity (not too may or too few)
    • All citations include author, title, and publisher data when possible
  • Uses reliable sources where needed and primary sources to fill in details
  • Language and formatting are consistent throughout article
  • Uses appropriately sized, on-topic images

Hope that helps. Feel free to ask any questions you may have & I will be happy to help get to article up to the good standard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Copyedited & reorganized

edit

I went ahead and implemented the re-organization & copy editing for flow I was recommending. I made a few other small changes while I was at it. Let me know what you think. (I have also commented on a few specific points above.) If the changes look OK to you, I have we are pretty close to a pass now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I gave the article a very careful reading and made a few more adjustments in wording here & there. I just need you to re-read it to make sure I didn't introduce any new grammatical problems by accident. I did also note that the term "situational optima" is not really used outside of this article. I think its meaning is clear from the context, but perhaps it should be re-worded.

Once the re-reading/fixing any problems I introduced is complete, let me know. I am pretty sure the article will be a pass at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Final review

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    Sufficient re-written to fix flow problems; no grammar or similar problems that I see
    B. MoS compliance:  
    checks out in all ways I can think of
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    "Correct" amount of references & all are formatted properly
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    Article doesn't go into depth about the company itself but this material is not essential to understanding the subject
    B. Focused:  
    article has been fixed to no longer jump from topic to topic
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
    All weasely phrase have been corrected. Overall the article is favorable toward its subject, but that doesn't make it POV in this case. Software is the industry leader and widely praised by poker players. As such, it would be incorrect for the article not make these facts known.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    Non-free images are above recommended resolution, however the increased resolution is essential in this case. Any further reduction would make the text illegible
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    I don't see any problems serious enough to fail this article. I would do a few things different, what that is a matter of personal taste, not policy.


IMO, featured article status would require expansion which isn't currently possible, but of course that isn't relevant to this discussion. Congratulations on getting this important poker article up to the GA standard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PokerTracker/GA2&oldid=302678319"