Wikipedia:Peer review/Texas hold 'em/archive2

Texas hold 'em
Old Peer Review

Hello, this is the second request for peer review. The article has had several changes since the previous one. I think that its getting close to FA standard, but I would like to solicit some other opinions. Thank you very much for your time! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * If a non-program agrees with this, could she suggest what might be added to make it more comprehensive? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * Found one instance, fixed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * No infobox I know of. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * are considered
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * "Note that the blinds are considered "live" in the pre-flop betting round." is the only occurrence of "are considered". This is not a case of weasel words. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * I'll try to keep this in mind. This is case where a specific reference would be of great help. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoid using contractions like: didn't.
 * Found one instance of "didn't". Fixed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Found two spaces between punctuation and footnote. Removed them.--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
 * Thank you for the comments. As a suggestion for the program, it would really help if you could point out where the offending bits are.  It's very hard, for instance, to go through each and every footnote looking to see which one is before the punctuation.  I suspect this wouldn't be a hard modification, although what do I know ;)  I'll look through the article and find them. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)