Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas hold 'em/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

Texas hold 'em[edit]

Intended nomination by MJPerry, who failed to create this page. --Phoenix (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "other games may be more popular than Texas hold 'em in some places." Weasel words in the lead.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.201.245 (talk • contribs)
    • The beginning of that sentence refers specifically to stud and omaha and makes it clear the subject is most countries "outside the united states". Need it be more specific, and if so, how might I express the same idea? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the sentence. As you can see, I have simply removed the problematic part. The problem with this sentence is that "may" and "some" are vague and not verifiable; the other games are either more popular or not, which is it? Which places? Without something more specific to say you shouldn't say anything at all. If you want to say something about this point, it would be best to find a source that documents how popular these games are and where. Failing that, just don't say anything (a pretty good policy for problematic prose). --66.234.201.245 03:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have rephrased the sentence, and added it back in. It has removed the use of weasel words, but allows for some statement to be made. I think something like this needs to be there in order to avoid biasing the article toward a US perspective. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Statements that fierce must be cited, especially one's containing the phrase "most popular". The first and last sentences in the extant lead need to be cited. ALTON .ıl 05:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Although hold 'em is commonly played outside of the United States, in many countries Omaha or seven card stud are more popular." This sentence really bugs me. "many countries" is weasel words, plain and simple. If you can't quantify this better (How many is many? Which countries?) cut it. As a writer you must be willing to cut dubious prose, instead of trying to cram in everything that you think is important. --Ideogram 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the sentence. I will think of ways to express the underlying idea differently. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a substantial contributor to the page, so I will not cast a vote. As a bit of history, I had been intending to nominate this page once I had some spare time on my hands, but spare time does not come around often. It has been subject to two peer reviews. Let me say a few things in support of the nomination. The article is well referenced were needed. Although short, we have not been able to come up with many neutral and notable additions (we are certainly open to suggestions). The strategy section is appropriately NPOV, but also presents a nice picture of the generally accepted facts regarding strategy (a difficult task I think). The hold'em explosion section is well done, and probably the best account of this recent history available. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the following reasons:
    • Rules section is unreferenced. I assume these rules were summarized from another source? Which source?
      • I added a reference to Super/System which is as good as any I think. -kz
    • History section seems to lack comprehensiveness. How did the game develop and evolve. We are left with "Someone invented the game. Then Doyle Brunson and his buddies came along..." This seems inadequate.
      • Discussed below. -kz
    • Starting hand terminology section reads like strategy. Why is it not part of that section?
      • Moved and reframed that section. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joseph Hachem image may be questionable in its use. His performance is not discussed, neither is any mention of the 2005 event discussed or analyzed in the section. At best, an image from the 2003 event, which is discussed, may be more appropriate.
      • See below, Hachem is mentioned. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opening of rules section should be italicized for consistancy (the see also bits)
      • Fixed -kz
    • Other copyediting is needed. A few problems I caught (there are probably more):
      • a patent attorney from Connecticut whose trademark holographic sunglasses have become legendary Really... According to whom? Reference or reword to remove peacock term "legendary"
      • Pineapple[34] and Omaha hold 'em[35] both vary the number of cards an individual receives before the flop, but are dealt identically afterward. (Omaha may also be played high-low.) Footnote placement makes sentance hard to parse. Move footnotes to end of sentance. Also, the fact that Omaha can be played high-low is hardly unique. EVERY poker game can be played high-low. The discussion of high-low that follows is also unneeded as well.
        • Fixed -kz
      • which all bear some similarity to each other What similarity? What makes community card games a coherant class?
    • Several sections are jargony, and need wikilinks at best to explain to the uninitiated. Consider an audience of people unaquainted with poker. The "Kicker and ranks" section has a lot of problems here. As a poker player, I can read it fine, but it gets technical in its language, and could benefit from, perhaps, wikilinking words like "Kicker".
      • Kickers and ranks section fixed. I'll look at others soon. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While where on it, the whole examples section is probably too long. Insofar as it explains the flow of a hand, it is OK, and the "sample hand" section does this well. However, the Kicker and Ranks section, besides being overly techinical, is probably excessive and unnecessary, as it gets too much into strategy, which is not what this section should be about.
      • I have reduced the kickers and rank section substantially so that it only illustrates the concept at hand. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is close, but could benefit from some copyediting and perhaps a peer review.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your extensive comments. I will try to address your concerns in a day or two. With respect to your second point, there is simply no reliable information before that time. I recognize it's less complete than one might like, but any additional information is speculative original research at best. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I play a lot of poker, but I don't read a lot of poker literature. However, I find that hard to believe. With the possible exception of Contract Bridge, Texas Hold'em has to be the most documented card game in history. The "Games and Hobbies" section of any Barnes and Nobles has as many Texas Hold'em Books as the rest of the section combined. No one has researched the history? There has got to be something more than this out there. I want to believe you that the information just doesn't exist, but it stretches my sense of credibility. Someone has to have researched this. It isn't like this is an obscure game... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read a lot of poker literature, and this is all I've found. Almost every single one of those books in any bookstore are simple how-to books. You will notice that the section references one book, Super System 2. This book's history begins after the first episode documented in our article. Despite your presumption to the contrary, poker's history in general is not well documented. It was considered a game played by lowlifes, and so much of what we know is reconstructed. I'm afraid you will have to take my word on this one. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, I did a quick search. This was the second link after us on google:
As previously mentioned, "no one really knows" where Texas Hold'em came from. There is no precise information in regards to where the first game of Texas Hold'em Poker was played. However, according to legend, the earliest game played was in Robstown - Texas, in the early 1900s and it first came to Dallas - Texas, in 1925.
--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I won't press that issue anymore. But there is enough else to work on to get this article to FA status.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the Haschem image, unfortunately there are no free alternatives for the two people discussed more (moneymaker and raymer). We originally had moneymaker, but its not clear that there is a legitimate fair use rational for this page. Haschem isn't completely off topic, he is mentioned and the world series in general is discussed extensively in that bit of the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've dealt with all your suggestions with the exceptions of the two mentioned above. Let me know if my modifications are satisfactory. Thanks again for your comments. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I struck through my oppose above. All fixes have been made. This is a featurable article now, IMHO. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I caught something and fixed it myself. Hope you don't mind.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course not! Thanks for all your help. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you replace $ with "chips" or "points"? It's difficult to judge articles like this, because as an editor of some Video Game articles I realize what the temptation is to go into detail about gameplay. I also read that "little is known" about the History of Hold 'em. That's not good, because without a 'known history' the article is reduced to a quickie guide to playing. The lack of categories and apparent connectivity to other articles (any applicable Navboxes?) concerns me. I don't have much an opinion about this article, but reading through it doesn't strike me with a sense of professional tone. ALTON .ıl 05:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alton - Thanks for your comments. Let me think about replacing '$'. "Chips" won't do, since in many casinos $5 chips are used, so chips != dollars. Also, "points" doesn't really work either, since most poker is played for money. Is the concern just over the localization of dollars? With respect to the history. I agree that the lack of history is unfortunate. But there is nothing we can do. As I'm sure you are aware, objections which cannot be remedied shouldn't keep this article from featured status. I do think the article is more than a "quickie guide to playing" however. Disputes over strategy are represented in the strategy section and there is some history in the history section as well as recent history in the hold'em explosion section. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Haven't read in fine detail but have a couple of minor points. First, the black and white first picture is kind of dull and in any case, I think the article could use a couple of other quality pictures. Also, the "see also" section can be removed since I believe all these are already linked to in the article. Pascal.Tesson 12:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I like the BW image; it illustrates many of the relevant features of the game (the community cards, the private cards, the bets). I have added a few other images and illustrations to the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also section has been removed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not a bad article, but there are several problems:
    • The lead is too short, it needs to be at least three paragraphs, per WP:LEAD.
      • Lead has been expanded, although not to three paragraphs. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More references are needed, especially at the beginning; "Objective" has none, "Betting structures", "Play of the hand" and "The showdown" has merely one footnote.
    • I have some issues with the "Examples" section; I'm not sure if it can be considered encyclopedic and again there are no references at all (almost expected by the nature of this section, I suppose). It should at least go to the end, imho.
    • There should be a section on the most important instructional books, not just the fictional works. Some of them are used as references but not mentioned in the main text. At the very least there should be a "further reading" section.
      • Reference to super/system added to history section. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history section could be a longer, and it basically stops at 1970.
      • Expanded this section. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would prefer a more neutral headline than "hold 'em explosion" and that section could also deal with the spread of poker in other countries than just the UK and the US.
    • Why are all wikilinks to Hand rankings dubbed "poker hands"? Hand ranking seems like the better term to me.
    • Are there no interesting external links worth mentioning? Sloan21 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for the delay in responding. Thank you for your extensive comments. I will work on the suggestions you give in the next few days. One that I would like to discuss is regarding the reference density. While I could site hundreds of books that support our description of the game, I don't seen why its necessary. The description of the rules is simple, and only a detailed description of the rules provided anywhere. Are there particular parts that you feel need to be referenced? If not, I don't see why more references do anything to improve the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually have a few other things to discuss from your comments. I talked with a few other people about the example section and they said it helps to illuminate the rules/structure section. My initial reaction was to agree with them. I really think it helps to illustrate the concepts presented (it serves the same purpose as an image, which is not strictly required to explain most topics either). The reason we don't list further reading (which was removed by consensus from an earlier version) or external links (by de facto policy of WP:POKER) is that developing and maintaining such sections is nightmarish. There is a lot of room for bias and spam to creep in. Given the wide variety of books/web pages, it is not possible to non-arbitrarily limit the number that are placed in the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • References should at least be used on the examples and general statements in the first sections (common blinds, most common televised tournament form. straddles offered in most casinos). Regarding the example section, I just find it odd to read about Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice in an encyclopedia, comparable FAs like Chess or Monopoly don't have such a section and I don't think the basic rules are that complicated to begin with; if there is consensus that the section is needed, so be it, but I think it would be much better to expand the rules section with additional examples and cut the examples section. I can't agree with you on the further reading section, bias and spam would be arguments against the use of such a section in general, but normally there are few problems. For example, I think it's strange that the text doesn't even mention Sklansky's Theory of Poker right now. Sloan21 15:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of lots of references, although I recognize this has become common practice for FAC. In particular I don't see why or how your examples would be referenced; we are not going to find a newspaper article about such common knowledge. --Ideogram 15:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree those claims should be cited. I'm pretty sure this all covered in the current citation (to Super/System), but I will double check tonight. I don't mean to be rude and contradict you about the problem of spam, but spam is a big problem on poker articles. There are a lot of texas hold'em books, of varying quality, and millions of texas hold'em websites that are basically link farms. It would be difficult to find consensus on a standard by which books are listed in a further reading section, and such a section would be of minimal benefit. I don't think its so strange that the text doesn't mention the theory of poker, this book isn't specifically about texas hold 'em and, while influential in poker generally, it isn't regarded as a particularly great book on the subject of texas hold'em. (In contrast to Super/System which is regarded as a great source specifically for texas hold'em although it covers other games.)
I don't want to shut down discussion, though. I actually initially wanted to keep the section in the article. If you can assist us in developing a standard for a further reading section that will keep it manageable, I will be happy to implement it. But since consensus previously decided this section would be removed, I don't want to reintroduce it until those original concerns are addressed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. The whole text needs careful copy-editing by somone who's unfamiliar with it. Please network among WPians who've successfully worked on similar articles. In particular, there's much redundancy. Here are a few random examples of problems in the writing. (Please don’t just fix these examples.) The lead is too short to serve its required function (2a). Too many of the technical terms (e.g., "antes") are not briefly glossed on the spot, but just linked. It makes for a turgid reading experience to have to zig-zag out and back constantly if you're not already in the know.
    • "outside of the United States"—Spot the redundant word. It's not used by serious American writers.
    • "As a result of By making such decisions, winning poker players are able to maximize their expected utility and win more money"

However, some of the text is well-written, and we really do need an excellent article on this topic. Why not collaborate with others to improve it, and then have a non-expert audit it for comprehensibility? Tony 10:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for your comments. Initially the article was written with the idea that it be read by people with knowledge of poker terminology. But I think you're right, in order to be an FA it should be accessible. I will attempt to make it a little more widely readable. Re, your specific comments: I don't see the redundant word, could you be more explicit?
"Of". Tony 12:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree having more eyes is better. I had hoped that WP:PR would have been helpful in this regard, but it was not. Since most of the active members of WP:POKER are involved in this article do you have a suggestion for where I might look for helpful copy-editors? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors for this, but I have never tried them so I don't know how responsive they are. --Ideogram 21:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have fixed all instances of unexplained terminology. While terse in some cases, it should be possible for a careful reader to have some idea of what every term means without consulting the linked articles. Let me know if any are hard to understand or remain unclear. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Your first reference goes to a broken link. Check all the references. --Ideogram 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will check all of the references, but this one is not a serious problem. I added it myself and read the article to which it refers. The internet magazine only keeps articles up for 3 months after which all rights are returned to the owner. This article is not on archive.org (yet). I have contacted the author to request that he make the article available in some form or other, but either way the article did indeed say what the article claims it said. There is at least one other citation to this magazine that will have the same problem, I will contact the author of that article as well. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have confirmed that all other links are extant. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this time it appears the outstanding issues are more references, expanding the lead, and copy-editing. If others can take care of the first, I will be able to help with the last two. --Ideogram 09:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your help! I don't think the article needs more references, although I suppose I could add more. I wanted to discuss this concern with Sloan, but she appears not to be responding. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I found the prose to be lack luster and making a lot of assumptions about the readers familiarity with poker. I'd have prefered more on the history/development of the game.also
the objective of Texas hold 'em is to win pots, the object is NOT to win pots. The objective is to maximize winnings and minimize loses. This is one of the basic principles that every poker book I've ever read stresses.Balloonman 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I have attempted to introduce every poker concept with at least one sentence of clarification. Every concept is also linked for a more detailed analysis. I guess I must have missed some, could you point out the points where you felt the article had improper presumptions? That would really help me.
Re: history. I appreciate that you would like there to be more, but I don't think there is much more to say. Can you point to something specifically that you would like to see? The reason I ask is that most of the areas where the article is shallow are simply unknown (i.e. who first played the game, how it emerged from other games, etc).
Re: winning pots. There was extensive discussion of this sentence (somewhere, I can't find it now). You will notice the first sentence of the next paragraph deals with your objection exactly. "The objective of winning players is not winning individual pots, but rather making mathematically correct decisions. " We opted to use a slightly inaccurate first sentence to introduce readers, while a more exact later one for correctness. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Texas_hold_%27em/archive1&oldid=1141922474"