Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Series of Poker Ladies Champions
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [1].
Ok, let's see how well I learned my lessons from my first FLC attempt. Here is my second go at an FLC. Tell what I need to do to get this to the next level.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c]- I still suggest you remove the infoboxes, since, well, they're infoboxes. I don't think WP:MOS negates this, but it just looks kind of bad on the article. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 07:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Not necessarily opposed to it, but let's see what others think... I kind of like them because it gives a little more info about the champions... but if the consensus is to remove it, then I'll take them off.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can still have pictures... -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Truco asked to have them removed...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I said remove the infoboxes, the images could remain with subcaptions.--TRUCO 15:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added back in---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The second one should be removed, it messes up the format. One picture is fine.--TRUCO 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it, howz it look there?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its irrelevant there, but its better.--TRUCO 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it, howz it look there?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The second one should be removed, it messes up the format. One picture is fine.--TRUCO 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added back in---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I said remove the infoboxes, the images could remain with subcaptions.--TRUCO 15:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Truco asked to have them removed...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can still have pictures... -- SRE.K.A
- Removed---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily opposed to it, but let's see what others think... I kind of like them because it gives a little more info about the champions... but if the consensus is to remove it, then I'll take them off.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still suggest you remove the infoboxes, since, well, they're infoboxes. I don't think WP:MOS negates this, but it just looks kind of bad on the article. -- SRE.K.A
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GaryColemanFan
Comments from GaryColemanFan
Is it necessary to show who participated in the 2008 tournament? Won't this information be outdated soon? I'm not sure what it adds to the article.
- ????I'm not sure where/what you are referring to here? The only place where somebody from the 2008 tournament is mentioned other than the winner, is when I'm talking about the "WSOP Academy Ladies Only Poker Camp," which is a camp designed to coincide with this tournament.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the section in the key that states: "† Denotes player who participated in the 2008 WSOP." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded, what I was looking for was something to indicate which players were still active. So I changed the wording to reflect that.
- I don't know if I'd consider it necessary, but I'm sure some people would find it helpful. It certainly doesn't hurt anything, so I'll cross that out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded, what I was looking for was something to indicate which players were still active. So I changed the wording to reflect that.
- I was referring to the section in the key that states: "† Denotes player who participated in the 2008 WSOP." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ????I'm not sure where/what you are referring to here? The only place where somebody from the 2008 tournament is mentioned other than the winner, is when I'm talking about the "WSOP Academy Ladies Only Poker Camp," which is a camp designed to coincide with this tournament.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nani Dollison's lifetime winnings need a second look. They should be consistent, and I'm assuming that lifetime winnings shouldn't be lower than the winnings from a single tournament.
- Fixed---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a new problem here, as it now states that she won $622,904 in both 2000 and 2001. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Ooops, was rushed due to my son waking up from a nap... he's in bed now, so I fixed it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason that Barbara Enright's name can't be centered?
The list of men's champions gives additional information (winning hand, number of entrants, etc.). Would that information be appropriate here? There is some extra space in the table, which would allow this to fit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The women's event has been as well documented as the Main Event. It has only been in the past few years that it has started to emerge as one of the pre-eminent events at the WSOP. When it was first added, it was added as a gimmick to get more women to play poker (I wish I could find the source where I read that!) But anyway, the first tournament was only a $100 buy in, and frankly the WSOP doesn't even know how many people were in the earliest tournmanets let alone the winning hands. I could add a column for the number of participants, but about half of them would be empty and I figured it would be better not to include it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean that the women's event has not been as well documented as the Main Event. I was expected that was probably the case, so feel free to ignore this comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's what I meant. Not as well documented. Many of the earlier Ladies events we don't even know who the runner up was or how many people were in the event.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean that the women's event has not been as well documented as the Main Event. I was expected that was probably the case, so feel free to ignore this comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The women's event has been as well documented as the Main Event. It has only been in the past few years that it has started to emerge as one of the pre-eminent events at the WSOP. When it was first added, it was added as a gimmick to get more women to play poker (I wish I could find the source where I read that!) But anyway, the first tournament was only a $100 buy in, and frankly the WSOP doesn't even know how many people were in the earliest tournmanets let alone the winning hands. I could add a column for the number of participants, but about half of them would be empty and I figured it would be better not to include it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Notes" section has a formatting problem. The notes read a,[b],c. There should be consistency. The corresponding "a" seems to have been removed when the infoboxes were taken out, so it doesn't link to anything in the prose or table. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The World Series of Poker (WSOP) is the "the oldest, largest, most prestigious, and most media-hyped gaming competition in the world".[1] It is held annually in Las Vegas." I think that there is a way to merge these sentences: "The World Series of Poker (WSOP), held annually in Las Vegas, is the "the oldest, largest, most prestigious, and most media-hyped gaming competition in the world".
- "prior to"-->before.
- "but rather an event with a set start and stop time with the winner determined by secret ballot" Is there a way to eliminate the "with ... with" repetition?
- "the first Ladies only event"-->the first Ladies-only event
- "Jackie McDaniels won that event to became the first Ladies Championship." A couple things wrong here: wrong verb tense, and one can't become a "Championshiop".
- "
onlythree players"
- "of color," Check your logical punctuation here, the comma should be outside the quotation marks.
- "Traditionally" Comma after here.
- "The women who have attended the camp have done well at the Ladies Championship" Can you verify this?
- reworded---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sally Anne Boyer similarly" "similarly"-->also.
- no longer applicable, reworded section---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CAPTION, images that have captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods.
- done Made into sentences.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.pokerroom.com/newsroom/news/592/ reliable? We may have discussed this last time, but I didn't check.
- Yes we did, the poker room is an established gaming casino and one of the oldest/largest poker cites on the web. I would not rank it as reliable as a magazine, but for this story, which is pretty well known in poker lore, I believe it is reliable. ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 36 (the last one) needs a last access date.Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.