Talk:Planet Poker

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Poker (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Security Flaw[edit]

How about mentioning this: http://www.developer.com/java/other/article.php/10936_616221_1/How-We-Learned-to-Cheat-at-Online-Poker-A-Study-in-Software-Security.htm ? 71.112.25.123 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)ATBS[reply]

Templates added / Help needed / Author COI[edit]

I know it's usually in poor taste to randomly swoop in anywhere and drop templates, but this article is in substantial need of overhaul in a lot of ways. I'm not going to doubt its notability specifically with the first line and all, but the rest of it reads like a bedtime story. ...Okay, a "flowing company history"? This is where the essay tag comes in. It's important to differentiate between "interesting" content and "encyclopedic" content. A lot of numbers and special claims should have citations, as well. Obvious a lot of time was put in here, but working backwards through contributions brings up a fairly obvious the creator was a SPA writing up several WP:AUTO based articles. I'm going to look into it.

This needs a total rewrite and even that probably won't leave it as anything more than a stub. Highly recommend anything not sourced or essay-like to be enforced and generally removed as irrelevant. I'm not exactly an expert here... this is mostly matter of certain content possibly sneaking in under less than good faith. ...I'll obviously check back, but this needs at least some third-party sources that aren't just websites within the industry to both prove what's given and show general notability besides just its place as a poker site. I don't mind attempting to repair it but I need at least something to work with. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]