Talk:PokerTracker/GA2

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


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

Initial comments
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.
 * I must first state that this is the most contentious GA review I have ever had in the 250 or 300 that I have had. I will however, WP:AGF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel it is contentious, I was merely trying to be as specific as possible. It certainly wasn't my intent to say the article was bad or anything like that. Like I said, I am more than willing to help edit the article, I just wanted to get all the "things needed" out there so they could be addressed iether by you or me or someone else. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to attempt to accept all feedback. However, I have strong opinions at times.  Let's try to work together.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I should have been more clear from the beginning - only the things under "major problems" need fixed for a pass. The other suggested changes I view as desirable, but not necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.)
 * Seems fine. Organization is always an area that I can use help with. I am a fact finder. I usually cobble my facts together in suboptimal ways.  Thanks so much.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia is its greatest strength because it allows for others to compensate for our weaknesses. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead especially reads choppily - try and combine such sentences and/or leave some details out
 * I am not exactly sure what you are looking for. I have made some modifications. I would love for you to give more guidance in this regard either here or at PR. I find it hard to believe you could want a shorter WP:LEAD however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I just meant a few words not whole sentences. Sorry for the confusion.
 * So with your changes and my changes is it O.K. now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the lead & it occurred to me that it actually goes into more detail about the type of statistic tracked than the body of the article does. As such, I think the body needs to talk a bit more about what kind of stats are tracked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a lot of detail about the software features.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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
 * I believe you have done this to your own satisfaction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You could say that :)
 * 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.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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
 * This is another one that I think you have assisted me with already.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "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.
 * I gave it a shot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "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"
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If such information can be found, a brief history of the company and/or software would be worth including
 * This is a good suggestion, but I am unable to find any sourced content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yah looks like the official web page doesn't even have an "about us" section, so there isn't much to say then. Perhaps a release date for PT3?
 * The "use and legality" section is a bit POV pushy to me, in particular:
 * "To some the only drawback..." needs rewords (to some is a weaseal word)
 * "Even casual poker amateurs can benefit from the software." seems POV - this can probably be addressed by combining it into the proceeding sentence.
 * I believe that you addressed both of these concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "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
 * I have tried to address this concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better now, thanks --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * 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)

Copyedited & reorganized
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)

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

Final review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

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)