# Talk:PokerTracker

Lord, give me strength. It's written about almost ad infinitum in the poker world. (Crap UI imho, I'm no apologist for the software at all - but it needs an article.) --kingboyk 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:PokerTracker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Article seems good, it needed some NPOVing, which I did myself. I need a second opinion, though. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


### 2nd opinion
Hi, A few suggestions which the main reviewer and article contributors may choose to heed or ignore.


#### Images
I think the article is excessive in its use of images, especially high-resolution non-free ones. Some of them could be greatly reduced by simply resizing the windows before taking the screenshots. Especially the one in the main infobox, where the main window's width could have been reduced without any loss of information. 

The resolution of the images is necessary to convey the content.  Legibility is at issue.  Even reducing the images to 60% of original size causes a significant loss in legibility.  There are only three non-free images and each teaches the reader what the fuss is about by showing the two currently suppported versions of the software.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The hand history and tournament log, while not non-free, take up a substantial amount of space in the article without conveying that much useful information to the reader. The HUD screenshot displays a lot of irrelevant detail (only the table window, and possibly the Instant Hand History actually shows the HUD). 

For the average reader (This is probably going to be a DYK tomorrow.) they have no sense of what type of data the program uses.  The hand history and tournament log show them exactly what the article is describing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The HUD screenshot, which is used in several articles, gives the viewer an understanding of the online poker session. If necessary a cropped image of the HUD could be created, but the reader is learning about online poker by seeing the whole screen.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I am unsure what the current consensus is regarding the actual resolution of non-free software screenshots, but I see at least one of the images tagged with {{non-free reduce}}. For the reasons outlined above, I think the article currently fails 6a/b of WP:WIAGA. 

I have talkesd with the tagger about the legibility of the text in the images.  He has agreed that at much smaller resolution the text is illegible.  At even 50 or 60% of the original size the text is illegible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I am also slightly concerned about publicly displaying the VPIP / PFR / AF of real players. While I think it's unlikely that this information could be effectively exploited, I think it's better to err on the side of caution.[grammar?]

Keep in mind that these are only the stats after one session of the tournament and that no one has even played with me (ElT007) for 50 hands. It would be like revealing stats for one half of one basketball game or something.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


#### Text
As for the prose, I find the article reasonably well written, but this:

The HUD is best explained by analogy to the Terminator made famous by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The character is well-remembered for the data streams in his vision. This is regarded as a HUD or heads-up display
seems like OR/POV. Another quibble is the use of "you", addressing the reader directly.

Read the orignial WP:RS. It is not OR and this is likely to be the DYK hook.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


#### Sources
is www.all-the-aces.com/ a reliable source? What about appshopper.com? (Is the sentence this source supports really relevant, anyway?)

I have revised the All The Aces citation for clarity of its WP:RS status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The reader wants to know about what platforms software is available for.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


#### Conclusion
All in all, I think the article is pretty good, but not yet "Good" as in "Good Article". Comments from additional reviewers are welcomed. decltype (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the complaints are based on a lack of understanding of the importance of the content as presented.  There are no remaining WP:WIAGA issues and I have explained most of your quibbles.  While your second review might provide justification for not listing, it has not provided any room for improvement that is really achievable because the arguments did not consider the needs of the article.  Keep in mind that this article was formerly deleted, which partially explains how little the importance of this articles's content is appreciated.  Let us not continue that lack of understanding.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if you feel that my review was not constructive. While your arguments for keeping the images at high resolution for legibility are reasonable, you did not explain why the windows themselves could not be resized, potentially greatly reducing the size of the images without any loss of legibility. On the contrary, such a change would improve the visibility of the GUI elements when embedded in the article. I am not talking about cropping, which shouldn't be necessary.
This is especially true for the infobox image, where the PT window could probably be resized to something like 1024x768 before the screenshot is taken, and details such as your taskbar could be excluded. This is of course unless there are limitations in the software that prevent the main window from being resized. In that case the native screen resolution could be changed for basically the same effect.
I have resized two of the images by changing the screen resolution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I feel the same is to a lesser extent true about the HUD image. Because the image is taken at a relatively high resolution, (and again, I'm talking about the screen resolution), there is a lot of unused space in the picture. I was not aware that the image was used in other articles. It seems to lack FURs for those (not of consequence here, just a reminder).
I resized the HUD earlier to the lowest level I believe is legible.  Resizing the window would however impact the layout and detract from the readers ability to learn by seeing what a session looks like.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I still think that the HH and tournament history take up an inordinate amount of space, but that's just an opinion. (I am currently viewing the article at a resolution of 1280x1024).
Very few readers know what they are.  They are quite encyclopedic in this context.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
As for the old AfD, I do not really see how it is relevant. The article that was deleted was apparently a two-sentence stub without any RSs. The article in its current state clearly asserts the notability of the subject.
Again, I am sorry if the review seemed unconstructive (it probably was), but I don't think it's fair to say that my complaints were based on "a lack of understanding of the importance of the content as presented". Possibly a "disagreement on the importance of the content as presented". I really do believe that I considered the "needs of the article" when reviewing. My opinion was simply that all the images might not be needed. decltype (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have attempted to accommodate your concerns as outlined above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
First of all, all of the screenshots should be cropped at the top and bottom, so they just contain the actual window (not the Vista bars). Aside from that, the first image doesn't meet the threshold of originality required for copyright (it consists entirely of text and rectangles), and so once the Vista graphics are cropped out, it will not be an issue at any resolution (it should be shrunk a little so that the icons cannot be reproduced, though). The graph summary image should be cropped to just the graph, since that's all that the image is being used for. I think you can shrink the graph without sacrificing legibility.
I have cropped the graph and the infobox image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The third image is the really important one. I think this should be shrunk down, and have arrows and text boxes explaining what each section of the screen is. Think old software manuals, they would have low-resolution screenshots and arrows and text boxes and all that. You could also have little boxes to zoom in on specific points in the image. That would be a completely justifiable fair use and would vastly improve the usefulness of the graphic at the same time, so everyone wins.
I am not sure I can add all the wrinkles to the third image that you want. Does anyone want to take a stab at it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's too elaborate an idea, I have no idea if other reviewers will even agree with me. Personally I think the article is completely acceptable in its current state, even with the third image as it is. 129.10.104.191 (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Consider these three adjustments, I think everyone will be able to agree with them and this article can pass GAN. --129.10.104.191 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have given my opinion and noted the improvements. I'll leave the decision to list or not with the original reviewer. decltype (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


### On hold
I have put the article on hold because I currently do not think the article meets GAC.
Besides the (mostly alleviated) concerns of Decltype (talk · contribs), the article's 
POV in favor of the software has been reinstated, thus not meeting GAC #4. As there is currently ongoing
discussion about some of the statements, I am putting the article on hold awaiting
improvements in the POV department. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 13:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently the debate is about POV against the software.  Here you are saying the issue is POV in favor of the software.  I am not sure which statements you are referring to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There just seemed to me to be a lot of statements in favor of the software. Maybe I am just confused. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 21:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If it is the most popular and most widely used, what would you expect?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


### 3rd Opinion
The whole article needs severe copy-editing for grammar, spelling and style.  Currently it is a long way away from GA status.  It is not reasonably well-written.
Some examples:

PokerTracker imports and parses the hand histories that poker sites write to a computer during online play in order to store the resulting statistics/information about historical play into a local database library for self-analysis as well as strategic analysis.  Break up into smaller sentences, use commas.
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The sofware is capable of analyzing cash ring games, sit and go tournaments and multi-table tournaments. In addition, it is able to consolidate statisitcal summaries from various online poker websites.[10] The main database uses tournament summaries (see image right) and hand histories to provide a three section summary (see infobox screenshot). The top section of the general information tab provides tournament summaries of profit/loss as well as ordinal placement summary. The other sections summarize sititational statistics based on the level of the blinds and the starting hand. Other tabs produce detailed information for other statistical interests. Check spelling, rewrite in good English.
PokerTracker's probability graphs as well as historical statistics of the hands a player and his or her opponents generally play enables him or her to analyze conditional statisitical possibilities and optimal betting amounts. PokerTracker is a tool that professionals are never without because it enables them to constantly calculate the situational optima.[11] The situations it analyzes are conditional on the opposition's playing characteristics and the player's position relative to the dealer.[12]  Rewrite in good English
I gave it a shot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The PokerTracker company is well-known for their PokerAce HUD software, which is separate from the version two PokerTracker software versions. Marbella Slim of the Daily Star explained the HUD concept by drawing an analogy to the data streams in the vision of Terminator, made famous by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The PokerAce HUD is a transparent data presentation that does not require an online poker player whose attention is focussed on the screen to look elsewhere while playing. Thus, statistics and notes are readily available during play.  Rewrite in plain English, and parse the grammar.
I gave it a shot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  20:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
In fact, Total Gambler says that in addition to experience and skill the other necessity for a gambler to become a professional poker player is poker software such as PokerTracker.  Lose the In fact which is weasel wording.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  13:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 In fact, to some the only drawback to poker tools such as PokerTracker is that they take the fun out of the game. Again.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  13:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


#### Images
:Hand_history.jpg  We all know what a text file looks like - this image adds nothing to the article.
I did not know what a hand history was until I saw one and am sure many readers do not know what one is or looks like.  The image does not depict a text file, but rather the hand history format that a reader would not understand clearly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  13:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
180px-Tournament_summary.jpg - as per above
Same as above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  13:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hope this helps provide pointers for improvement. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this article simply has too many issues at the moment, including NPOV, grammar, and possible image concerns. It just does not meet the criteria right now. I hope the article is improved in the future to GA status. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I need an opinion on an interpretation of an paragraph.  The following part of a paragraph is at issue with a customer support representative at PokerTracker:

The sentence is entirely attributed to http://www.totalgambler.com/poker/features/8169/poker_software_reviews.html, which says PokerTracker 2 was the prominent force in online poker tracking for well over two years. During that time, the software team enjoyed the luxury of market domination and, to a large extent, customer satisfaction. This is an article from December 2008, which is before PT3 was released in January 2009. The sentence speaks in the past tense of PokerTracker's dominance of the industry as if in December it was no longer the leader. Do you have an opinion on this text and whether it adheres to the WP:NPOV policy.  It seems to me that this reliable source suggests that the software lost its leadership position briefly before version 3 came out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  03:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely Total Gambler's opinion, and so should be stated that way.  There are no independent sites that track sales of these products, and lots of people prefer Poker Office or something else.  Market share, customer satisfaction, all that is totally not verifiable, so reliable sources should just be quoted for their opinion, with WP:UNDUE the thing to be mindful of. 2005 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What about a change to the following:
Although it does not cite a source for sales, market share or customer satisfaction, Total Gambler says that for more than a two-year period PokerTracker 2 was the "prominent force in online poker tracking", but that prior to the full release of their PokerTracker 3 software they had surrendered this position.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see the point about past tense, but I don't think the source supports "prior to the full release of their PokerTracker 3 software they had surrendered this position". decltype (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
O.K. Does it support "Although it does not cite a source for sales, market share or customer satisfaction, Total Gambler says that for more than a two-year period PokerTracker 2 was the "prominent force in online poker tracking", but that prior in December 2008 they were not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  05:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I admit I am reading into the past tense, but in this field we have limited resources in terms of WP:RS.  I am thinking that last Christmas I would have bought something other that PokerTracker if I was shopping for a gift for a gambling friend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  05:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That entire three sentence paragraph should be removed.  It's just by definition all POV.  Some people think this (thus others don't).  None of it is needed.  The article is about something notable; it's market share three months ago, today or a month from now is neither demonstable nor very important, and anything said is kinda deceptive and guessing. 2005 (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
In general, isn't part of establishing something is notable relating whether it is a leader or it is recognized in its field.  I find the deletion of every opinion of whether it was a leader highly unusual.  Usually, the policy is to say whether RS's have opinions on things.  I think the text should be edited, but not removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  07:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I am most likely the editor who started all this, I  removed the statement (along with a lot of other things) because they seemed to me to be POV. I am afraid I agree with 2005, simply because it probably cannot be edited enough. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 12:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I am looking at your edits and don't see when you removed it. I have never heard of an editiorial discussion being resolved by something like remove becuase "it probably cannot be edited enough".  I mean think of editorial debates between Democrats and Republicans, Palestines and Isrealis, etc.  Some really delicate stuff gets hashed out by talking and proposing changes.  Here is another attempt at something palateable that is less interpretive:
Although it does not cite a source for sales, market share or customer satisfaction, Total Gambler says that for more than a two-year period PokerTracker 2 was the "prominent force in online poker tracking", but at the time of its December 2008 review it speaks of this leadership position in the past tense, while asserting that PT3 had not yet been "fully released" at the time of their testing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  13:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have given this more thought.  I think expanded would be better thant eliinated as follows.  I think the following is quite NPOV and helps inform the reader:
Several websites continue to portray PokerTracker as the world's leading or the world's most popular poker tracking software.  For example, Pokersource.com describes it as "the most popular poker tracking and analysis software available".  Party Poker describes PokerTracker as "the original and largest piece of poker tracking software". PokerSoftware.com says "Poker Tracker has been the industry standard . . . for years". However, although it does not cite a source for sales, market share or customer satisfaction, Total Gambler says that for more than a two-year period PokerTracker 2 was the "prominent force in online poker tracking", but at the time of its December 2008 review it speaks of this leadership position in the past tense, while asserting that PT3 had not yet been "fully released" at the time of their testing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree, this is simply a representation of significant viewpoints, and is NPOV. I think the clause "although it does not cite a source for sales, market share or customer satisfaction" is superfluous now, because none of the other sources mention any of those either. decltype (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:PokerTracker/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewing article now, comments to follow later today --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


### Initial comments
Unfortunately, the PokerTracker article appears to fall short of the good article criteria in a number of way.  The good news is the problems should be reasonably easy to fix.

I must first state that this is the most contentious GA review I have ever had in the 250 or 300 that I have had.  I will however, WP:AGF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry you feel it is contentious, I was merely trying to be as specific as possible. It certainly wasn't my intent to say the article was bad or anything like that. Like I said, I am more than willing to help edit the article, I just wanted to get all the "things needed" out there so they could be addressed iether by you or me or someone else. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I am going to attempt to accept all feedback.  However, I have strong opinions at times.  Let's try to work together.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I should have been more clear from the beginning - only the things under "major problems" need fixed for a pass.  The other suggested changes I view as desirable, but not necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Major issues
The main problem is that the article suffers from choppy prose.  Sentences don't flow together very well and at times the article jumps around from topic to topic.
Often this is caused by unnecessary wordiness.  For example the products section starts, "The PokerTracker software company has analysis software editions named..."  The information is this sentence is better handled by something like "PokerTracker offers software designed to help analysis one's poker play.  Products include PokerTracker 3 and PokerTracker Holdem v2 for Texas hold 'em, PokerTracker Omaha for Omaha hold 'em, and PokerTracker Stud for Stud poker."
Go through the article and try to reduce wordiness & split sentences apart when needed
I think you are missing the point of the sentence above.  PokerTracker is both the name of a software company and several software programs.  Thus, the sentence is using extra words to make clear what PokerTracker means in the particular context.  Are you sure given this ambiguity that the words above are unnecessary?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  02:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Secondly, I have been through a WP:PR in hopes of getting advice on problematic verbiage.  I truly am presenting about the best content that I am able.  I will attempt to revisit it, but would prefer to work with you here or have you come along with me to PR for another go at it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  02:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I did understand the point of the sentence, but it was pretty hard to read as originally written.
Try and reduce to feel of "jumping around" by increasing the use of transitional words/phrases and reorder some material as needed.
Although this article is not the best prose, adding optional words is against the advice of some of the more prominent editorial influences around here such as User:Tony1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I was looking for a reorganization with a few transitional words to connect ideas when needed.  Take a look at what I did & let me know what you think. (I could be off base here, but I only meant a few more words in some spots - and a few less in others.  What a wrote above didn't accurate convey what I meant, sorry.)
Seems fine. Organization is always an area that I can use help with. I am a fact finder.  I usually cobble my facts together in suboptimal ways.  Thanks so much.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Glad I could help.  The collaborative nature of Wikipedia is its greatest strength because it allows for others to compensate for our weaknesses. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The lead especially reads choppily - try and combine such sentences and/or leave some details out
I am not exactly sure what you are looking for. I have made some modifications. I would love for you to give more guidance in this regard either here or at PR.  I find it hard to believe you could want a shorter WP:LEAD however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, I just meant a few words not whole sentences. Sorry for the confusion.
So with your changes and my changes is it O.K. now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  02:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I just re-read the lead & it occurred to me that it actually goes into more detail about the type of statistic tracked than the body of the article does.  As such, I think the body needs to talk a bit more about what kind of stats are tracked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added a lot of detail about the software features.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Along the same lines, the paragraphs seem to randomly jump form one topic to another.  Try to reorder them so all the "technical" information is together, all the "descriptive" information is together, and all the "public response" information is together
I believe you have done this to your own satisfaction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You could say that :)
The CNET quote should appear in the body of the article, as well as the lead.  This might be a bit picky, but the lead shouldn't contain any info not found in the article.
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  02:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Minor issues
Left-aligned images (or in this case textboxes) shouldn't be placed at the start of a section
You are incorrect on policy on this one.  I think you are referring to MOS:IMAGES#Images, which says that left aligned images should not be placed directly under a level three header.  In this case it is under a level two header as is permitted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  02:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I thought is applied to all sections, not just L3 ones - my mistake.
Additionally, the section is over crowded with images IMO.  I would suggest dropping the "tournament summary" box as it doesn't really add anything.
People who are veterans of poker may feel this adds nothing.  A person like me who just got active in April had no idea what these looked like.  Basically, we are talking about one of the two types of data used by PokerTracker to produce the database of info.  I do not see why it would improve the article to hide either of the only two types of data used by the program.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  02:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
My thought here is that 1) a tournament summary and a hand history are not all that different to begin with and 2) a user of the software might never even look at the underlying file so it is not all the essential to the reader's understanding of what the software does.  That said, having both isn't a "deal breaker" my any means.
If the game data in the example box is real, it should be changed to fake data for privacy reasons
Can you cite policy.  I have never been asked to remove true and valid content from wikipedia.  When you say game data are you referring to the final image of a game in progress.  This is a screenshot.  Obviously, it contains data from a game that actually occurred.  It would take extensive photoshopping to remove all the names.  However, since all the names are aliases, what you are asking me to do is to provide aliases for the aliases I believe.  This makes no sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I meant in the text boxes, but it probably isn't important.
"Summary" is not a very good section heading - it should be renamed something more specific and the information in it split appropriately
This is another one that I think you have assisted me with already.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"PokerTracker is a tool that professionals are never without because it enables them to constantly calculate situational optima." is pretty POVy as written - it needs reworded or dropped.
I gave it a shot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  03:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
"The PokerTracker company is well-known for its PokerAce HUD software" - actually it is known for the PT software and the HUD secondarily.  Perhaps change "well-known" to "also known"
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
If such information can be found, a brief history of the company and/or software would be worth including
This is a good suggestion, but I am unable to find any sourced content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yah looks like the official web page doesn't even have an "about us" section, so there isn't much to say then.  Perhaps a release date for PT3?
The "use and legality" section is a bit POV pushy to me, in particular:
"To some the only drawback..." needs rewords (to some is a weaseal word)
"Even casual poker amateurs can benefit from the software." seems POV - this can probably be addressed by combining it into the proceeding sentence.
I believe that you addressed both of these concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"Marbella Slim of the Daily Star explained the HUD by using the analogy of the data streams in the vision of Terminator famously portrayed by Arnold Schwarzenegger." - I don't understand what this sentence is trying to tell me; it certainly doesn't help me understand what the HUD does.  Also, if it stays in some some it needs a cite
I have tried to address this concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Much better now, thanks --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"An application software (known as an app) for the iPod Touch and iPhone exists under the name "Poker Tracker" that is not confirmed to be in any way related to this software company.[14]" - I don't think this sentence is needed or adds anything.
Non-issues
Facts in the lead don't need a cite unless they are a direct quote so feel free to change that if you want
The article uses the "quote". format instead of "quote." format.  The former is used primarily in British English and the later in American English.  The article seems to be primary American English, so you might want to change it - however, either is correct so no change is necessary.
Actually, it is not a British or American thing.  In American english, when you quote an entire passage, its ending period belongs inside the quotes, but when you quote part of a passage it belongs outside. E.G.,
TonyTheTiger said "Actually, it is not a British or American thing." or TonyTheTiger denied it is a "British or American thing".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  03:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to quibble over nothing, but in my understanding "correct" usage varies by style guide.  In Britain it is generally "in or out based on the context" whereas in America it is generally "always inside."
Things that are good
Appropriate use of infobox
Good use of internal links
Citations are used properly and in the correct quantity (not too may or too few)
All citations include author, title, and publisher data when possible
Uses reliable sources where needed and primary sources to fill in details
Language and formatting are consistent throughout article
Uses appropriately sized, on-topic images
Hope that helps.  Feel free to ask any questions you may have & I will be happy to help get to article up to the good standard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


### Copyedited & reorganized
I went ahead and implemented the re-organization & copy editing for flow I was recommending.  I made a few other small changes while I was at it.  Let me know what you think. (I have also commented on a few specific points above.)  If the changes look OK to you, I have we are pretty close to a pass now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I gave the article a very careful reading and made a few more adjustments in wording here & there.  I just need you to re-read it to make sure I didn't introduce any new grammatical problems by accident.  I did also note that the term "situational optima" is not really used outside of this article.  I think its meaning is clear from the context, but perhaps it should be re-worded.
Once the re-reading/fixing any problems I introduced is complete, let me know.  I am pretty sure the article will be a pass at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  20:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


### Final review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Sufficient re-written to fix flow problems; no grammar or similar problems that I see
B. MoS compliance: 
checks out in all ways I can think of
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
"Correct" amount of references & all are formatted properly
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Article doesn't go into depth about the company itself but this material is not essential to understanding the subject
B. Focused: 
article has been fixed to no longer jump from topic to topic
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
All weasely phrase have been corrected.  Overall the article is favorable toward its subject, but that doesn't make it POV in this case.  Software is the industry leader and widely praised by poker players.  As such, it would be incorrect for the article not make these facts known.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Non-free images are above recommended resolution, however the increased resolution is essential in this case.  Any further reduction would make the text illegible
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I don't see any problems serious enough to fail this article.  I would do a few things different, what that is a matter of personal taste, not policy.

IMO, featured article status would require expansion which isn't currently possible, but of course that isn't relevant to this discussion.  Congratulations on getting this important poker article up to the GA standard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)