Wikipedia:Peer review/2009 World Series of Poker Europe/archive1

2009 World Series of Poker Europe
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to turn it into a featured list like 2007 WSOPE and 2008 WSOPE and ultimately make World Series of Poker Europe a featured topic.

Thanks, Rymatz (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I recently peer reviewed the 1973 WSOP, and found the contrast between the two articles quite interesting. I do not think this currently meets FLC requirements, so here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I often start a peer review by saying a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. You have already done that with the FLs for the two previous WSOP events, but I have to say that I think the model is flawed and that this does not meet the MOS and FLC requirements.
 * I think the lead does not follow WP:LEAD. For example the first sentence says nothing about this specific 2009 tournament (it would be a fine first sentence for a general article on the WSOPE). WP:LEAD says in part (about the first sentence): The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. This does not do that.
 * In fact the current lead does not even mention the 2009 WSOPE until the fourth paragraph. Now I know that FLs often have larger leads than WP:LEAD would recommend, but I think the lead should focus on the subject of the article (2009 WSOPE) and not wait until the last paragraph to toss in a few facts about the topic. There was much more textual information on the 1973 WSOP in its short article than there is here on the 2009 WSOPE.
 * The current fourth paragraph is a poor summary of the tables of information which make up the body of the article. Let's look at one sentence, on the first of four events: The first event saw J.P. Kelly emerge as the winner of a less-than-an-hour long heads up battle, overcoming a 3-to-1 chip deficit against Fabien Dunlop and earning his second World Series of Poker bracelet of the year. WHen I read this I thought the first event was one game (not sure of what kind of poker) that lasted less than an hour. When I read the table below it tells me it was £1,000 No Limit Hold'em, that there were 608 buy-ins and that the event lasted four calendar days. I think all of this could be in the lead.
 * Similar comparisons can be made for each of the other three events - I would specify the length in days, the number of buy-ins (I assume this is the same as the number of players??)(If not, this needs to be clarified), and the type of poker played.
 * I did an experiment and pasted the first three paragraphs of 2008 World Series of Poker Europe in the place of the first three paragraphs here (without the picture). There was only one change (colon to ndash) between the two. Following a model is a good idea, but copying and pasting that model is not.
 * That said, I would look carefully at the information in the current lead that is not specifically about the 2009 WSOPE and see if it merits inclusion. For example what does this have to do with the 2009 WSOPE? Furthermore, as the laws that govern the age of gambling differ in England than the U.S., the WSOPE admits younger players. In 2007, one of these younger players, 18-year-old Annette "Annette_15" Obrestad became the youngest player to win a WSOP bracelet event.[5] Were there younger players in 2009 who did well? If so, talk about them, not about what happened two years ago. Similarly, did any of the finalists get there via the online gaming partner? If not, why is such prominence given to the company? Look at each statement and ask yourself how is this relevant to 2009 WSOPE. If it is, keep it somewhere. If not, get rid of it.
 * I would start the lead with the details of the 2009 tournament. Perhaps some overall stats (days long, number of players, total money in buyins and in prizes, total number of events). I then would devote a few sentences to each of the four events. Then and only then would I go into the history and background of the tournament (though I think it would be fine to have a first sentence that mentioned that this was the third year of the WSOPE).
 * If you raise the argument that the 2008 WSOPE FL does not do this, I would say that I think it needs serious work to remain a FL.
 * I also think that the tables could use a few sentences of introduction each. Perhaps briefly explain the games of poker involved. For example did any of the previous WSOPE winners repeat?
 * Sources depend fairly havily on the WSOPE site - are there other, more independent sources available?
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)