Wikipedia:Peer review/1972 World Series of Poker/archive1

1972 World Series of Poker

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because albeit it's quite short, I'm hoping to make it a good article.

Thanks, Rymatz (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article - thanks for your work on it so far. I think it needs some more work before it would pass easily at WP:GAN, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD, which says that the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is not really anything on the Aftermath in the current lead.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. The current lead is a sort of intro / background section and has a lot of information on the previous WSOPs and how this one differed from those which is not found anywhere else.
• I would add a paragraph or two on background, perhaps as its own section. This could include both a brief history of the WSOP itself (why it was started, how, where it was played) and also the information on the previous tournament and how this one differed from that.
• The lead image is currently a copyvio - if you go to the website it was taken from it says "Unless noted, all images are the copyrighted property of Binion's Horseshoe and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and may not be reused without express written permission." That trumps any assertions of emails that allow use of photos on Wikipedia.
• I do not doubt that "Permission was given by David Schwartz, coordinator of the Gaming Studies Research Center, to use any materials from this site in accordance with the GFDL." but either the website has to say this (modify the statement above) or Mr. Schwartz has to send a permissions email to OTRS - see WP:OTRS. If this is not resolved in a week, I will ask that the image be deleted on Commons as a copyvio.
• The article uses a lot of technical poker terms, some of which are linked. Articles should be written in such a way as to be accessible to the general reader, so I would try to add brief explanatory text to the linked terms (so that a reader does not have to click the link to get a general idea what is meant). For example, when the freezeout structure is mentioned, a clause explaining that in this kind of tournament one player winds up with all the chips would help. See WP:PCR
• Also watch out for WP:OVERLINKing - for example flop (poker) is linked twice in the body of the article
• The language is OK, but in places really needs some polish. A few examples follow, I would try to get a copyedit or read the article out loud slowly after not looking at it for several days.
  • Wathc out for unneeded repetition The preliminary event featured five-card stud poker and was won by Bill Boyd, the same man who won the 1971 five-card stud preliminary event. could just be The preliminary event featured five-card stud poker and was won by Bill Boyd, who won the same event in the 1971 WSOP. (avoids repeating five-card stud and preliminary event twice in the same sentence)
  • Or here look at repeats of "appear(ed)" Twelve people were slated to appear at the main event, but due to reportedly attractive side cash games only eight of them appeared at the tables on May 11, the date the event was scheduled to run.[5][6] the last phrase "the date the event was scheduled to run" is not needed - unless the tournament had to be postponed the reader assumes it occurred on the date(s) scheduled.
  • missing word and non-encylcopedic tone The winner of [the] previous two WSOP main events, Johnny Moss, took an early lead in the tournament, but soon ended up [was] eliminated.
  • "would be" does not mean the same thing as "eventual" (what is really meant here). Presumably everyone who entered was a "would be champion" (they wanted to win), but only Amarillo Slim was the eventual winner. With four players left on the second day of the tournament, Amarillo Slim, the would-be champion, was very short-stacked with less than 2,000 chips. (I like how short stacked is explined breifly here)
• The article contradicts itself in places - the table says Slim won $80,000 but note b says it was only $60,000. The article makes it clear that the real amount may never be known and that at least 2nd and 3rd place did pretty well too.
• Are the tables really useful - only two players in the first tourament, but one is anonymous. Or the identities of the 8 players in the WSOP is not clear and the amounts won are in dispute - how useful are the tables in this case and how accurate are they?
• Make sure the sourcesw used meet WP:RS - I have no idea if poker articles use these as RS but would check.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia: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.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia: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 _><>°^° 17:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)