Talk:PokerTracker/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

Article seems good, it needed some NPOVing, which I did myself. I need a second opinion, though. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

2nd opinion
Hi, A few suggestions which the main reviewer and article contributors may choose to heed or ignore.

Images
I think the article is excessive in its use of images, especially high-resolution non-free ones. Some of them could be greatly reduced by simply resizing the windows before taking the screenshots. Especially the one in the main infobox, where the main window's width could have been reduced without any loss of information.
 * The resolution of the images is necessary to convey the content. Legibility is at issue.  Even reducing the images to 60% of original size causes a significant loss in legibility.  There are only three non-free images and each teaches the reader what the fuss is about by showing the two currently suppported versions of the software.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The hand history and tournament log, while not non-free, take up a substantial amount of space in the article without conveying that much useful information to the reader. The HUD screenshot displays a lot of irrelevant detail (only the table window, and possibly the Instant Hand History actually shows the HUD).
 * For the average reader (This is probably going to be a DYK tomorrow.) they have no sense of what type of data the program uses. The hand history and tournament log show them exactly what the article is describing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The HUD screenshot, which is used in several articles, gives the viewer an understanding of the online poker session. If necessary a cropped image of the HUD could be created, but the reader is learning about online poker by seeing the whole screen.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure what the current consensus is regarding the actual resolution of non-free software screenshots, but I see at least one of the images tagged with non-free reduce. For the reasons outlined above, I think the article currently fails 6a/b of WP:WIAGA.
 * I have talkesd with the tagger about the legibility of the text in the images. He has agreed that at much smaller resolution the text is illegible.  At even 50 or 60% of the original size the text is illegible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am also slightly concerned about publicly displaying the VPIP / PFR / AF of real players. While I think it's unlikely that this information could be effectively exploited, I think it's better to err on the side of caution.[grammar?]
 * Keep in mind that these are only the stats after one session of the tournament and that no one has even played with me (ElT007) for 50 hands. It would be like revealing stats for one half of one basketball game or something.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Text
As for the prose, I find the article reasonably well written, but this: "The HUD is best explained by analogy to the Terminator made famous by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The character is well-remembered for the data streams in his vision. This is regarded as a HUD or heads-up display"

seems like OR/POV. Another quibble is the use of "you", addressing the reader directly.
 * Read the orignial WP:RS. It is not OR and this is likely to be the DYK hook.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion
All in all, I think the article is pretty good, but not yet "Good" as in "Good Article". Comments from additional reviewers are welcomed. decltype (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most of the complaints are based on a lack of understanding of the importance of the content as presented. There are no remaining WP:WIAGA issues and I have explained most of your quibbles.  While your second review might provide justification for not listing, it has not provided any room for improvement that is really achievable because the arguments did not consider the needs of the article.  Keep in mind that this article was formerly deleted, which partially explains how little the importance of this articles's content is appreciated.  Let us not continue that lack of understanding.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize if you feel that my review was not constructive. While your arguments for keeping the images at high resolution for legibility are reasonable, you did not explain why the windows themselves could not be resized, potentially greatly reducing the size of the images without any loss of legibility. On the contrary, such a change would improve the visibility of the GUI elements when embedded in the article. I am not talking about cropping, which shouldn't be necessary.


 * This is especially true for the infobox image, where the PT window could probably be resized to something like 1024x768 before the screenshot is taken, and details such as your taskbar could be excluded. This is of course unless there are limitations in the software that prevent the main window from being resized. In that case the native screen resolution could be changed for basically the same effect.
 * I have resized two of the images by changing the screen resolution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel the same is to a lesser extent true about the HUD image. Because the image is taken at a relatively high resolution, (and again, I'm talking about the screen resolution), there is a lot of unused space in the picture. I was not aware that the image was used in other articles. It seems to lack FURs for those (not of consequence here, just a reminder).
 * I resized the HUD earlier to the lowest level I believe is legible. Resizing the window would however impact the layout and detract from the readers ability to learn by seeing what a session looks like.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think that the HH and tournament history take up an inordinate amount of space, but that's just an opinion. (I am currently viewing the article at a resolution of 1280x1024).
 * Very few readers know what they are. They are quite encyclopedic in this context.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the old AfD, I do not really see how it is relevant. The article that was deleted was apparently a two-sentence stub without any RSs. The article in its current state clearly asserts the notability of the subject.


 * Again, I am sorry if the review seemed unconstructive (it probably was), but I don't think it's fair to say that my complaints were based on "a lack of understanding of the importance of the content as presented". Possibly a "disagreement on the importance of the content as presented". I really do believe that I considered the "needs of the article" when reviewing. My opinion was simply that all the images might not be needed. decltype (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to accommodate your concerns as outlined above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, all of the screenshots should be cropped at the top and bottom, so they just contain the actual window (not the Vista bars). Aside from that, the first image doesn't meet the threshold of originality required for copyright (it consists entirely of text and rectangles), and so once the Vista graphics are cropped out, it will not be an issue at any resolution (it should be shrunk a little so that the icons cannot be reproduced, though). The graph summary image should be cropped to just the graph, since that's all that the image is being used for. I think you can shrink the graph without sacrificing legibility.
 * I have cropped the graph and the infobox image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The third image is the really important one. I think this should be shrunk down, and have arrows and text boxes explaining what each section of the screen is. Think old software manuals, they would have low-resolution screenshots and arrows and text boxes and all that. You could also have little boxes to zoom in on specific points in the image. That would be a completely justifiable fair use and would vastly improve the usefulness of the graphic at the same time, so everyone wins.
 * I am not sure I can add all the wrinkles to the third image that you want. Does anyone want to take a stab at it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's too elaborate an idea, I have no idea if other reviewers will even agree with me. Personally I think the article is completely acceptable in its current state, even with the third image as it is. 129.10.104.191 (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider these three adjustments, I think everyone will be able to agree with them and this article can pass GAN. --129.10.104.191 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have given my opinion and noted the improvements. I'll leave the decision to list or not with the original reviewer. decltype (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On hold
I have put the article on hold because I currently do not think the article meets GAC. Besides the (mostly alleviated) concerns of, the article's POV in favor of the software has been reinstated, thus not meeting GAC #4. As there is currently ongoing discussion about some of the statements, I am putting the article on hold awaiting improvements in the POV department. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 13:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently the debate is about POV against the software. Here you are saying the issue is POV in favor of the software.  I am not sure which statements you are referring to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There just seemed to me to be a lot of statements in favor of the software. Maybe I am just confused. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 21:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is the most popular and most widely used, what would you expect?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

3rd Opinion
The whole article needs severe copy-editing for grammar, spelling and style. Currently it is a long way away from GA status. It is not reasonably well-written.

Some examples:


 * PokerTracker imports and parses the hand histories that poker sites write to a computer during online play in order to store the resulting statistics/information about historical play into a local database library for self-analysis as well as strategic analysis. Break up into smaller sentences, use commas.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The sofware is capable of analyzing cash ring games, sit and go tournaments and multi-table tournaments. In addition, it is able to consolidate statisitcal summaries from various online poker websites.[10] The main database uses tournament summaries (see image right) and hand histories to provide a three section summary (see infobox screenshot). The top section of the general information tab provides tournament summaries of profit/loss as well as ordinal placement summary. The other sections summarize sititational statistics based on the level of the blinds and the starting hand. Other tabs produce detailed information for other statistical interests. Check spelling, rewrite in good English.


 * PokerTracker's probability graphs as well as historical statistics of the hands a player and his or her opponents generally play enables him or her to analyze conditional statisitical possibilities and optimal betting amounts. PokerTracker is a tool that professionals are never without because it enables them to constantly calculate the situational optima.[11] The situations it analyzes are conditional on the opposition's playing characteristics and the player's position relative to the dealer.[12] Rewrite in good English
 * I gave it a shot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The PokerTracker company is well-known for their PokerAce HUD software, which is separate from the version two PokerTracker software versions. Marbella Slim of the Daily Star explained the HUD concept by drawing an analogy to the data streams in the vision of Terminator, made famous by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The PokerAce HUD is a transparent data presentation that does not require an online poker player whose attention is focussed on the screen to look elsewhere while playing. Thus, statistics and notes are readily available during play. Rewrite in plain English, and parse the grammar.
 * I gave it a shot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, Total Gambler says that in addition to experience and skill the other necessity for a gambler to become a professional poker player is poker software such as PokerTracker. Lose the In fact which is weasel wording.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  In fact, to some the only drawback to poker tools such as PokerTracker is that they take the fun out of the game. Again.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Images
Hope this helps provide pointers for improvement. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * :Hand_history.jpg We all know what a text file looks like - this image adds nothing to the article.
 * I did not know what a hand history was until I saw one and am sure many readers do not know what one is or looks like. The image does not depict a text file, but rather the hand history format that a reader would not understand clearly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 180px-Tournament_summary.jpg - as per above
 * Same as above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Failed
Sorry, this article simply has too many issues at the moment, including NPOV, grammar, and possible image concerns. It just does not meet the criteria right now. I hope the article is improved in the future to GA status. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)