Talk:Karpov–Kasparov rivalry

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article!.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Thanks. It was long overdue! --76.67.18.216 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible scope duplication

It seems to me that the current article may (to some degree) be a duplication of information on the existing related articles, especially the personal articles for Karpov and Kasparov themselves, and the articles about their championship matches. So, I put a complaint tag in the lead to that effect. I'd have to look more closely at the related articles I'm suggesting, but I know without checking that they variously touch on the given rivalry, since it's obvious.

The article is an interesting limit case, a wobbler. I agree that the subject is a notable period, which is why I'm not suggesting deletion, I'm just a bit queasy about repetition. If we can work up stuff which is unique to the article's subject (not included in the established articles), then this would be a much stronger case for a stand-alone article. Otherwise perhaps the article's subject might be merged/split into the related articles as sections (where the material isn't already discussed!)

A suggestion: when Wikipedia uses internal bluelinks or wikilinks to link to some certain aspect or thing, it doesn't always have to be its own stand-alone article. Frequently, the target can (and sometimes should) simply be a section in a given article, an aspect of the thing which maybe isn't important enough to warrant its own article. The trick in this case is, if the thing were split up, where to put it, which is a point in favor of keeping the article on its own. MinnesotanUser (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After restoring the original complaint tag (despite not doing anything myself on the article), I still wonder whether this article really needs to be here as its own seperate thing. Their contests were grueling and had their own notable coverage, and Kasparov's own middle books deal with the period, so they might be used to expand coverage.

Basically I think that the scope duplication complaint remains valid unless the article is changed to be its own distinct thing, not just a summary of box scores. And even then it would basically repeat info from the related articles. For a distinct article, I would suggest re-focusing on the background in ways which are distinct from the related bio/match pages. MinnesotanUser (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've resovled the duplication by matching the text here with the Karpov page, and adding an extract there; the Kasparov page looks fine as it is, but I've added a link there so that readers an find this article. Klbrain (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved