Talk:Tute/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article. It may take up to a week but I expect it'll take a lot less time since this is a quite short article. Moisejp (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'll continue the review started by Moisejp per mutual agreement with him. Any objections? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No disambiguation links, no linkrot. Moisejp (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Very confusing prose.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No evidence of OR. I can't access any of the books, but I trust you on good faith that all the info is properly sourced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Because key explanations, for example what a trick and a canticle are, are lacking, I can't say this is fully focused or broad in coverage.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No problems here.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All the images are OK.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Note to second reviewer: I believe everything up to the end of the Gameplay section is relatively straightforward and understandable. I am unsure whether the Scoring section is understandable or not. Personally, I have had trouble understanding it, but it may just be me. Many of the issues in the comments below have been fixed, so I recommend just reading through the article and seeing if you can understand everything, before trying to look at the notes below. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi GDuwen. I started trying to do some copy-editing to try to clean up this article, but I'm afraid it really needs a lot of work still. Some issues:
 * What is a canticle? Is it ever defined?
 * Is chant a bad translation? Players don't actually chant, do they? (If they do, this should be clarified because I think this will be completely alien to a lot of people.)
 * According to English sources a canticle is a declaration (to announce). I understand that it can be confusing, in Spanish cantar (besides of singing) means to announce. I have changed all to declaration/s. There are not much sources in English that explain the game, so interpreted that the word canticle was proper to be used.
 * From "Teach Yourself Card Games", p.54:

"Declarations. Upon leading to a trick (not when following), a player may show and score for a marriage or tute. A marriage is a king and a queen (knight) of the same suit and adds 20 to his card-points or 40 if in trumps." -- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Baza is mentioned in the lead, but we don't find out what it means until the middle of Individual Tute.
 * That's now clarified.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   16:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "A player of Tute holding the ten cards of the play in the traditional way of Fan." The grammar seems not right here, and why is Fan capitalized? Do you really need a wiki-link here to Hand fan?
 * Now it's: "A player of Tute holding the ten cards as a fan."-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you need to get rid of all the cases of him and he in the article. It may be challenging, to keep the language gender-neutral, without sounding totally repetitive by repeating the player constantly. But I think you need to address this somehow.
 * Done.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never seen internal links within an article before. Here there are various links to the Card Values and the Canticles sections, but I don't think they are useful or illuminating to what is being referred to. I would get rid of them. The "valuable cards" link in Final Score doesn't work at all.
 * Originally I used the internal links to avoid confusion as the reader advances in the explanation. Most of books first detail the value of the cards and the declarations or "canticles", and then explain the progress of the game. I got rid of the internal links.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of "valuable cards", I gather that is supposed to mean cards that don't have a value of zero? I don't think that is going to be very clear.
 * Is it now more clear?-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the Card Values table, I don't think you need periods after the values.
 * periods removed.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed up the en dashes and the spaces and the pp. in the Surces section, but then I had another look at it, and I thought I'm not sure that I've ever seen references formatted with semicolons like that. I noticed in some of your other GAs you use Harvard style (or something similar to it). Maybe that'd be appropriate here? Just a thought.
 * done.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The issues above are relatively minor problems, but the biggest problem was that I got really confused with the instructions in some places, and at one point I kind of gave up trying to follow. I imagine instructions for complicated card games are inherently challenging to explain, so you have my sympathy, but nonetheless, it needs to be clearer.
 * The Overview section is mostly clear, except for the mention of the as-of-yet unexplained baza.
 * Now its explained.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But in the Gameplay section, things get confusing:
 * "After the first card is played, it is mandatory for the rival to play a card of a major value of the same suit in order to win the trick." Who is the rival? Ah, now I see, this is talking about a two-player game. I don't think that's specifically stated in the text, only in the picture captions. BTW, I think rather than rival, opponent would be a better designation.
 * Now it's opponent.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is trick defined anywhere?
 * I linked the word to Trick-taking game, the word stock also links to a subsection of that article, but I think that both links provide clarification. Sometimes also the trick is defined as a "hand".-- GD uwen    Tell me!   16:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "If the rival holds a card of the same suit, but the value is less than the first one, it can be played normally, losing the trick." I think this needs to be explained better. What does "played normally" mean? What does it mean to "lose the trick"? Oh, OK, now that I know this is a two-player game it makes a little more sense.
 * Better now?
 * "If the second player does not hold a card of the same suit, the card to be played would be a trump." What does it mean "the card to be played would be a trump"? Does it mean the player must play a trump, or it is a good strategy to play a trump? What if the player doesn't have a trump?
 * I completed that a little bit and added the case that you mentioned.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The 7, and the cards of a lesser value, can later be exchanged only by a 2." When is that?
 * Is it now more clear?.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Chanting is allowed until the last two cards are picked, when only a card and the trump in the bottom remain in the stock. After all the cards are picked up by both players, all of the cards they hold must be played in order to finish the trick." This part is confusing. Should this be "the last two cards are left"? So do they pick up the last card and the trump as well, but just not chant, or do they leave them?
 * I made the modification that you proposed. When two cards are left in the stock you can't announce anymore your canticles or exchange trumps. The last two cards remaining in the stock are later picked as it happened previously as any of the other cards of the stock were previously picked.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "After a player of the first pair plays the first card, a player from the second pair, to the first player's right, has to play a card of a bigger value of the same suit. If the second player has a card of the same suit but the value is less, it can be played normally, but if the player does not have a card of the same suit, the card to play is a trump." This is confusing. The second player has to play a bigger valued card of the same suit, but then it says the player doesn't have to play a bigger card, but can play a smaller card "normally" (??). Otherwise "the card to play is a trump." Does that mean the player must play a trump, or it's a good idea. What if the player doesn't have a trump? What happens if the player does play the trump?
 * "Later the third and the fourth player continue in the same way as their partners." Since I didn't really understand what the first and second player are doing, I don't understand what "continue in the same way" means.
 * At different places you talk about making a baza ("After a player makes the first baza") and placing cards in their baza, and later beginning a baza. Is a baza an accumulating stack of cards over many rounds, or is it just a stack of cards for one round?
 * "The canticles stand as in individual Tute, but it is important to remind chanting after a player or his partner begins a baza (only this team can chant) because after the first cards are picked by each team, no more chants are allowed." Sorry, I didn't understand this at all. What does "important to remind chanting" mean? I also couldn't follow this: "or his partner begins a baza (only this team can chant)"
 * I got so confused in the Gameplay section that I couldn't follow the Score section at all. So I won't know until you fix up the Gameplay section whether I have questions about the Score section.

I'm putting this article On Hold. Let me know if you have any questions about the issues above. Moisejp (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I made some fixes on the gameplay section, but it's not entirely fixed. Since Tute is a tricky game to explain, I would recommend you to read this page. It's a short read but it should give you a basic overview of the rules that I'm failing to explain. It's not entirely complete and has a few mistakes, but it's a good short explanation to interpret the game rules.

I also have to apologize for confusions over words like canticle or baza, sometimes there are not other words to be used that explain what I mean, since the game is not widely known for English-speaking people, and in cases is not known outside Spain.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   19:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, GDuwen. I'm working my way through the article a second time, but am only a third of the way through so far. I rewrote the second para of Two-player Tute. It may be a bit repetitive-sounding, but I think it is at least clear. Please check that it is accurate.
 * Looks better now.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A very minor point, but the sfn ref link for Marco, Luis; de Ochoa y Ronna, Eugenio 1897 to the Bibliography doesn't seem to work, and I couldn't figure out why.
 * Fixed.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Is Individual Tute in the lead the same as Two-Player Tute? Moisejp (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is most often referred as Individual Tute, but for English-speakers I think it's more proper to use two-player Tute.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuing along, more points:
 * "In order to always hold ten cards in the hand"—but this isn't entirely true, is it, because once all the cards from the stock are gone, players' cards dwindle down to zero, not so? Could be confusing.
 * That's right, it's not entirely truth. You hold ten card until the cards in the stock are gone, but until that point you always will have ten cards on your hand (because you are picking cards from the stock).-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "After all the cards are picked up by both players, all of the cards they hold must be played in order to finish the trick." Are you confusing the meaning of trick here? A trick is one hand, right? And they each use up one card per trick, right? If they have ten left to use up, after they can't pick up any more, that should be ten tricks? Is that right, or is it me who is confused? So if we change "in order to finish the trick" to "in order to finish the round" does that work? Moisejp (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. Fixed.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Tute games are played until a established number of points is reached. When one of the competitors wins a round, one point is added to the total of the player's score. After one of the players earns the points goal (three and six point games are the most common), the game is over and the player wins." GDuwen, just before this you're talking about scoring with bazas and declarations, but this is a different kind of scoring, right? All the round's points disappear and it becomes one point for the round's winner and zero for the loser, is that right? If so, you've got to distinguish more clearly between the different kinds of scoring, and not use the word from one paragraph to the next without clearly indicating the change. Moisejp (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it now more clear?-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did further changes, I moved that to a single section under the section "Score" as "Final score" to avoid confusion.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "The rules for the declarations are similar to two-player Tute, but it is mandatory to announce the cards after a player or the partner begins a baza. Only the scoring team can declare. To announce their cards, the opposing team has to begin a baza. Announcing cards in the plays that follow the beginning of a baza is not allowed." I don't totally understand this. Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A pair is only able to announce their declarations when one of the players or his partner wins their first trick. If the pair forgets to announce their cards right after the beginning of a baza, and they try to do it later on the next trick, the declarations are now obsolete. It works the same way for the other team, that in order to declare needs to win a trick.


 * How can we write that properly?-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand the last point above. I'll have to look at the article again in the morning when my brain is more awake. Argh, this review has been a lot harder than I was expecting! :-) So, the last point still needs clarifying. Also:
 * Should this really go under Card Values? "Only one suit of the deck is the trump. All the cards of that suit can win over the other three suits of the deck during the game, except the cards of a bigger value of the same suit of the trump." It feels like it is either in the wrong place, or else maybe that the explanation needs to be longer? I'm really not sure. I think "Only one suit of the deck is the trump." definitely needs to be rewritten because it is obvious and we have already said that. I'll try to look at that again tomorrow.
 * I removed "Only one suit of the deck is the trump" as you said because it sounds redundant. I think that the clarification that a trump card beats any kind of card is useful under car values. After all, a person might think: "if a 5 trump is a carta blanca (white card) how can it beat an ace or three?".-- GD uwen    Tell me!   16:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the process of our edits, a couple of the paragraphs have lost their citations—sorry, that may have been my fault. Could you check whether my rewrites of the second para of Two-player Tute and the second para of Tute in Pairs still match the original sources well enough, and if so could you put the original source back in? Thanks, and sorry about that.
 * No problem, it's now fixed.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Besides that, I just have from Declarations on to re-read. I think the rest of the article is looking decent and we are getting closer to achieving GA. I'll try to look at this again tomorrow. Moisejp (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, we are getting there.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   16:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * GDuwen, can you explain or clarify this? "The total value of the baraja not counting the declarations, and only including the cards and the final ten points, is 130. The team that scores the last baza, additionally receives ten extra points.[16] The final score is determined by the following procedure:" What is the baraja? Did I miss the explanation for that somewhere?Moisejp (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Baraja is the name of the Spanish deck, I replaced the term.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   21:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For "Four Kings in the hand at the same time": "End of the game, automatic win". This should probably be "End of the round", right? Moisejp (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a thing to maybe be mentioned. In the standard rules of Tute, when Tute is announced the game ends. In other cases, the players agree to only end a single round. Some books and players even suggest that is possible to announce Tute when you got the four knights, but most players only accept four kings as Tute.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "After the hand is over, the counting starts." Should this be "After the round is over"?
 * GDuwen, a big question: If I understand it correctly, the scoring of Two-Player Tute is pretty clear. For Tute in Pairs, I have edited one of the sentences to be like this: "When all four cards of the trick are on the table, the pair that played the card with the biggest value wins the hand." Is this right? Now, if P is the card player 1 played, and T is the trump, and O is both of the other suits, am I right in saying that this is the ranking of all the cards:
 * T1 T3 T12 T11 T10 T7 T6 T5 T4 T2 P1 P3 P12 P11 P10 P7 P6 P5 P4 P2 O1 O3 O12 O11 O10 O7 O6 O5 O4 O2
 * If so, in the Card Values section, do we even need the table with the different points (Ace – 11 points, etc.)? Instead, maybe we should just clarify the relative ranking of the cards from T1 to O2, because that's what's important for winning the tricks. Or am I confused? Moisejp (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I see (I think). The card values are important for scoring at the end of the round, right? OK, well, I'm going to try to edit Tute in Pairs so that "When all four cards of the trick are on the table, the pair that played the card with the biggest value wins the hand." is clearer, because I don't think "biggest value" is very clear right now. Moisejp (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're pretty much OK for all sections except scoring and the last paragraph of Tute in Pairs. Let's work hard to finish off ASAP. :-)
 * You got that right, the section looks ok now.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "During a two-player game, the players can declare the 20 points or the 40 points until there are only two cards left in the deck, after which no players can declare.[14] A player declares in the following situations:" That talks about in a two-player game. How about for Tute in Pairs??
 * Quoting from the Tute in Pairs section:

"The rules for the declarations are similar to Two-player Tute, but it is mandatory to declare the cards after a player or the partner begins a baza. Only the scoring team can declare. To declare their cards, the opposing team has to begin a baza."

Since all the forty cards are divided between the players, you can only declare your cards at the time of scoring your first points. If you try to declare in the following hands, well, it's not allowed anymore.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Similarly, here you're talking about just a player, but it could be a team (for Tute in Pairs), right? "When a participant holds cards that allow more than one declaration, the player has to declare the values consecutively. If the player holds las cuarenta (forty) and veinte (twenty) in declarations, it is mandatory that this person first announce las cuarenta, and then veinte. Otherwise, the player loses the right to declare las cuarenta. If the player holds more than one veinte (twenty), the cards can be declared in any order, without affecting the result." Moisejp (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the point. But ultimately, even if the game is a pairs game, the decision is taken by the person that holds the cards to declare. The partner has no way to know that the player holds those cards, unless--and it's not really common--signals are used to tell your partner which cards do you hold. (this is discouraged, obviously because if the other players read you, they will know your whole inventory).-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to get back to this review again very soon, probably in a few days. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

All right. I've spent a few weeks trying to understand this game, and I have figured out everything except for the declarations and the scoring, which I still can't wrap my brain around. But it may just be my faulty brain. I have decided to ask for a second opinion on this review. Moisejp (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I read the article and the rules are perfectly clear to me (or at least it seems so). The things I think still are worth noting are:
 * the ability of a player to use the same cards for different declarations: eg. whether the player can declare both Las cuarenta! and Veinte having B12, B11 and O11 (and no more Kings and Knights) and
 * which suit is supposed to be named in Veinte (eg. in B12 and O11 should I declare Veinte en oros or Veinte en bastos)?
 * Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just misread the article in this part, sorry. I should have paid more attention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reading the article the second time.. Will note points in sometime. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 07:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would note, that tables in section Baza and declaration scoring seem to complicate the apprehension of the content. I would suggest to explain the rules in plain text instead. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's done, I only left the example table. I think that should do it.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it should either also be written in prose or further split like that. Though I still think that prose explanation could be more appropriate.
 * See, the problem here is that a table that provide a good explanation is rather big. It doesn't make sense to use the table-based approach for a fairly simple example. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that table looks good. It could look big, but I think that it might be a clear and good example of scoring that might eliminate doubts that the reader might have. BTW is there some way to align the table to the right and the text to the left? that could solve the space problem.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   20:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Something like this? P.S.: I'm pretty sure the table shouldn't be sortable. No reason to sort. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably horizontal layout would better help with the space problem:
 * {|class="wikitable"

! colspan="6" | Points for cards collected in baza ! colspan="2" | Declarations ! rowspan="3" | Last trick won ! rowspan="3" | Total ! Card rank ! Knaves ! Knight ! King ! Three ! Ace ! rowspan="2" | Las cuarenta! ! rowspan="2" | Veinte ! Amount ! Points ! style="text-align: center;" | 120
 * style="text-align: center;" | 2
 * style="text-align: center;" | 0
 * style="text-align: center;" | 1
 * style="text-align: center;" | 3
 * style="text-align: center;" | 2
 * style="text-align: center;" | 2×2
 * style="text-align: center;" | 0×3
 * style="text-align: center;" | 1×4
 * style="text-align: center;" | 3×10
 * style="text-align: center;" | 2×11
 * style="text-align: center;" | 1×40
 * style="text-align: center;" | 0×20
 * style="text-align: center;" | 1×10
 * }
 * Indeed more space effective. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff] ([[user talk:Czarkoff|talk) 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked both but since there is not much text, the second one looks perfect.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The contents of "The player declares" column in a table from Declarations section is somehow misleading: the italics are reversed in Spanish and English versions, which may be puzzling. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the italics for Spanish words and then explained in English with regular letters. I did it since is the original declaration.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The entries in the column "Situation" in a table from Declarations section should probably start with the word combination. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   16:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The column "The player declares" in a table from Declarations section should probably be called "Declaration". &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   16:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to note, that if you have any concerns about my recommendations, feel free to express them. I'm acting in good faith, but I still can be wrong. The best possible effort comes from collaboration. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding this statement from the Declarations section:
 * In two player game does this affect only the current standing or also the consequent changes in hand? Eg., if I declare veinte after first baza, can I declare las cuarenta after I get it after some time with the next cards taken from the deck? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In a two player game if you pick another knight and king you can declare las cuarenta. That rule for declarations is used in a pairs game. Unless that there are four cards left in the deck. In this case, you're still allowed to declare, you'll have to declare first las cuarenta and then veinte en... (According to the rules when there are only two cards left in the deck you can't declare) so that's a sign that you did not pick a new card to complete the combination.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   16:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding this statement from the Declarations section:
 * Is this also effective for las cuarenta? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you have to declare las cuarenta first. As an example let's say that a player holds las cuarenta, twenty in coins, and twenty in spades. After scoring, the player announces las cuarenta and then, in any order the other two declarations. If the player announces any of the twenty, he can't announce then las cuarenta, because he's breaking the logic order of the game. There is only a combination that gives you las cuarenta (the trump suit, in the case of the article, batons).


 * The deck has four possible combinations: (Batons are the trump)

All the other three can be announced in any order:
 * King and Knight Batons (40 points) -> 1st to be announced
 * King and Knight Coins (20 points)
 * King and Knight Spades (20 points)
 * King and Knight Cups (20 points)


 * Hope that clarifies it.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, my fault. &mdash; — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The cards' ranks are altered by the rules of the game. May be it would make sense to add a subsection about the ranks to the Gameplay section? Otherwise the ranks are only described in Two Pairs subsection. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The ranks are available in the explanation of both variants.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Round scoring section probably shouldn't use the word point in order to avoid giving the false impression of the points discussed in this section being summed up with the points discussed in previous sections. I would rephrase it to say that the game is played until the agreed amount of rounds is won by a player (or a pair). Probably this section could be merged into previous one (so that the new section could be renamed to Scoring). &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the round points and the points of a single game are different things. The number of rounds is indefinite, since the game is over when an amount of round points are reached. The scoring is divided to two section to avoid that a reader is confused by the replacement of his score of the hand with 1 point for winning the round.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are the round points critical for the game description? Or can we just end up referring to them simply as rounds? Eg.:
 * (This exact wording is just an illustration). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you could refer to them simply as rounds. I used "round points" because most often you would see the goal of a game referred as "Tute to 6 points" or so rather than "Tute to six rounds". You could count them as rounds but it might result in confusion when you say that a Tute game to six rounds has not ended after the 7th.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   21:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is a term that is widely recognized by players? if so, it should be definitely kept. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, when you start a game generally you say we'll play till 6, 9 points or such. So yea, it can cause confusion. I would keep it that way.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Break
It looks like we sorted out the issues I spotted. Still I would ask for some time to think on possible ways of its improvement, so that I could pass the article knowing that I did all to make it easy to read and understand. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a rather bold edit that (in my opinion) facilitates comprehension of two point types by referring to them as round points and game points. Please, approve or revert. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a good explanation. Maybe we could refer to the points in the baza as round points and the overall points as game points. I think that might be more suitable and describe it better. Reading it as it is now makes me think, ok it's until a round points goal but with the word game points you could mean the entire game or only a hand.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also thought this variant to be better, but I wasn't sure whether the wording round points is a translation from Serbian or a mere identifying prefix. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment my last edits. Did I mess something up? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a nice change. I'm ok with it.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   02:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)