Talk:World Series of Poker bracelet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former good articleWorld Series of Poker bracelet was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 13, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 31, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 27, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
February 8, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 18, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the 2007 main event World Series of Poker bracelet, awarded on July 17, 2007, is made with 136 grams of 18-carat white gold set with 120 diamonds?
Current status: Delisted good article

GA review comments

I've reviewed this article against the GA criteria, and have the following comments:

  • "At first the bracelet was not highly regarded. Over time the term bracelet became synonymous with winning a championship event and the number of events a person has won is counted in bracelets. This is true even if the event was won prior to 1976 when the first bracelets were presented." this needs an overhaul, it's pretty ugly English and has tense and grammar issues.fixed
  • "...bracelet's..." - no apostrophe required. fixed
  • "...didn't even pick up two of them." - this needs rephrasing, and avoid the use of "didn't" - this should be more encyclopaedic, i.e. use "did not". Problematic throughout the article. fixed
  • "Professional tournament pokers believe that there are two types of poker players those who have won a bracelet and those who have not." - first, I assume it is supposed to read "..poker players.." and not simply "..pokers.." but more significantly, unless this is cited, it is decidedly
    original research
    . fixed
  • "The one he won..." is awkward. fixed
  • What was the "corny prize"? unknown, no sources that I could find describe or discuss it.
  • "The following year,..." sentence is followed by another "The following year, ..." sentence. Reads poorly. fixed
  • Turn the list in the "Bracelet description" section into prose.fixed
  • "excusive"? Spell check required. fixed
  • "...it is considered to be valuable..." some understatement! It needs quantifying really.fixed
  • "Typical Corum watches sell in the 10's of thousands." - so? I expect Casio, Timex, TAG Heuer could claim this. And citation? changed, but no casio/timex/sell for 50-200 dollars a piece... Corum is a high end manufacturer that caters to millionaires! But I changed this.
  • Numbers below ten ought to be written in English, i.e. five, not 5.fixed
  • "...that he gave his daughter one..." - could be mis-interpreted and isn't nice English anyway.fixed

There are too many issues here to even keep the article GA nomination on hold at this time, so I'm failing it. Feel free to attend to some or all of the above and re-nominate for GA at a later time. The Rambling Man 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becky

"...according to Becky Benion..." I've changed to Becky Behnen. If someone thinks it should be Becky Binion, fine. Benion is no good. Thegov2k2 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked this... and you are correct.Balloonman 03:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it would not be NPOV to describe it as really tacky, but it is very hard to resist!! --ukexpat 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Describe what as really tacky?Balloonman 15:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

here
for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have
    fair use rationales
    )    :
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


  • As opposed to the current title sentence, I think it would be more encyclopedic to use "The World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet is the most coveted prize in gaming." <- Reference to current ref 6. Done
  • "At first, the bracelets did not have much prestige." - Why? This lacks context. There needs to be some explanation of what the bracelets were like before. I recommend switching the Prestige and Bracelet description sections to remedy this. Done
  • "The bracelet in 1976 cost approximately $500 and was manufactured by Las Vegas jeweler Mordechai Yerushalmi, the exclusive manufacturer of WSOP bracelets until Harrah's Entertainment bought the rights to the WSOP in 2004." - How do you know this? Reworded and fixed.
  • Rather than quote the references, reword the information. Reserve quotations for actual quotes.Done
  • References need to be consistently formatted and include all information available. See
    WP:CITE
    for further details. I have formatted some of them. Basically, Author. "[url Title]". Date. Work. Retrieved on date. Done if it doesn't have a piece of info, it's because the data wasn't there.
  • Ref 9 is currently 4 references combined into one. This needs to be separated to be individual references. Done
  • Ref 10 doesn't seem to be working. Removed looks like a dead link.

The article is on hold while these changes are made. Regards,

♥Love 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

2 days left on the hold. If issues remain unaddressed, the nomination will be failed.
♥Love 18:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll work on it this evening... my keyboard crashed on me over the weekend and it curtailed my editing---particularly on Sunday....Balloonman 18:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FinishedBalloonman 04:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been listed as a Good Article. Thank you for your hard work. In improving this article, you have improved Wikipedia. Regards,

♥Love 05:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of WSOP Events

I think this article is missing a list of events for which a bracelet is awarded. NinjaKid (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list changes from year to year.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many a year are awarded on average then? They're obviously well-respected in the poker community, but I have no clue based on this article if they award just one or two or a dozen or so a year. RPH (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a short summary of growth---
The artist formerly known as Balloonman 18:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Template

I have created {{

WP:LOTM) 02:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

most coveted?

They give out 57 61 of these things a year and they're still highly coveted? How many players are in serious contention for them? I got to this article after seeing these bracelets mentioned in a few other articles as if they were quite rare, i.e. given once a year to the championship winner that year, so if someone had five bracelets that meant s/he had won the WSOP championship 5 times. But while it may have been like that once, it sounds like the braclets have now proliferated to the point where they don't mean much. Unless there's some independent sourcing dating from after the number of bracelets increased to current levels, saying the bracelets are still a big deal, I think the description should be toned down, in this article and also in other articles (such as player biographies) that mention the bracelets. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While they give out a lot more today than they did a decade ago, it is still the primary prize in poker. Virtually every poker play still wants to win one. The WSOP is still THE poker event of the year and the WPT, while once gaining on the WSOP, has lost steam.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have to win the tournament to get the bracelet?

If so these numbers make no sense. 184.96.220.150 (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

care to elaborate?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why and how is more than one bracelet awarded a year? 184.96.219.82 (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have to win tournaments, it is called the World Series of Poker because it is a series of about 55-60 high dollar tournaments. Each of those tournaments has a bracelet. (3 of them are of partiicular interest---the 50K Players Championship, the 10K Main Event, and the WSOPE Main Event.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple bracelet winners

The Multiple bracelet winners section has been tagged as unreferenced for a while now. Is there a source that could be used to verify this information. Otherwise it could potentially be delisted as a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph; Main event winners with multiple bracelets?

Current Version:

After the conclusion of the 2014 WSOP APAC, there have been 1083 bracelets awarded, 500 of which were won by 170 players who have won at least two bracelets, with all of the other bracelets being won by one-time winners. This includes (up to this point) 18 Main Event winners: Hal Fowler, Bill Smith, Mansour Matloubi, Brad Daugherty, Jim Bechtel, Russ Hamilton, Noel Furlong, Robert Varkonyi, Chris Moneymaker, Greg Raymer, Joe Hachem, Jamie Gold, Jerry Yang, Peter Eastgate, Joe Cada, Jonathan Duhamel , Pius Heinz , Ryan Riess, Phil Hellmuth and Martin Jacobson. In addition to the one-time winners, Greg Merson has yet to follow up his 2012 Main Event with another bracelet. Merson won a bracelet (in 2012) prior to his Main Event win.

I'm having difficulties understanding what exactly this paragraph is trying to say. If it's Main Event winners who have multiple bracelets then players such as Johnny Moss, Stu Ungar and Chris Ferguson are missing from the list, as well as many on the list having their Main Event win as their only bracelet. The same applies if it's listing those who have only won bracelets after their Main Event win.

I'm more than happy to fix it all but I'd like to make sure I know what it's actually wanting to say! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

World Series of Poker bracelet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two unreferenced sections and two citation needed tags. Some content in the lede isn't mentioned in the body. This includes most of the list of main event single-bracelet winners. 2003 WSOP Champion Chris Moneymaker, the design of the bracelet remained relatively unchanged under Yerushalmi. Why is this statement attributed to a contestant rather than an event organizer. I could go on. Schierbecker (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Series_of_Poker_bracelet&oldid=1205136184"