User talk:Req: Science Law Chess

Article draft

I've moved the Lawrence Trent article to User:Req: Science Law Chess/Lawrence Trent. You can work on it there. When you're ready to move it back to mainspace just let me know and I'll help you out. Protonk (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft comments

I've made a few edits to the draft, noting my reasons in the edit summaries. I think this article needs two things and could benefit from a third:

There are a lot of elements sourced to interviews with Trent or to online box scores (essentially) for tournaments. For a biographical article, I'd really prefer to see 2-3 (but at a very minimum 2) sources which cover the subject in depth and don't come from the subject themselves. So an about page on his website, while informative, shouldn't form the anchor of our biographical narrative, because those things are basically resumes. Likewise, while we often want to cite tournament outcomes for especially notable games (or cite an ranking, etc.), we don't want to focus too heavily on events where those are the only sources, because then we have to make a lot of decisions about what's important and what isn't, and that can be hard to do without some good secondary sources. A magazine profile, a TV show on him, an article in a reliable online publication, etc. You'll see that those can make editing articles like this much easier.
I think there are some tone issues which I'd like to see addressed but I don't want to edit myself. This can be a catch-22 for articles like this, because you want to show that they're notable (to avoid deletion) but it can't seem too promotional. I think the best way to think about it is not in that frame of mind but from the perspective of a reader coming to the topic fresh. When I come to a biographical article, I'd like it to be concise, neutral and largely complete. If you imagine a critical reader and write to convince them you're being fair in your summary I think you can improve the tone a lot.
Lastly, and I'll admit I know little about this, there may be cool templates to use here

I hope that didn't sound too dire. I think if you make some of those improvements this draft will be a solid article in no time. Protonk (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit in Progress

Hi Protonk, That didn't sound too dire at all. I just need clarification on the use of citations. I thought it was important for verifiability to cite a reference for every fact I had listed. If it is preferable to be less cumbersome with 2-3 good references, then I would be happy to do that while I edit the article for tone. Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated - I re-wrote the article for tone and included the chess template for the diagram. A photo that I had posted with his permission was deleted. There is another photo of Trent in Wikicommons, but his eyes are closed. What is needed for the system to preserve a photo once it is uploaded?

I will start researching to select 2-3 references. Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated - I've reduced the number of references, but don't wish to use his current employer's website for a citation. However, it appears to be the only one that mentions his childhood which I think is important for younger players. I have added external links for his interviews and appearances to help clean-up and reduce the number of citations within the article itself.Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think using his employer's website is out of bounds (we often use university bios to add to articles on professors). For the photo, you'll want to do one of two things. Either convince the copyright holder (may be the photog, may be Trent, I don't know) to post the photo on their site with a compatible license (CC-BY, etc.--but not CC-BY-NC!) or have them email wikipedia releasing the photo under the appropriate license (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for details). The latter method sounds scary, but it's actually not that bad (and OTRS tends to respond fairly quickly). Protonk (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you want to get the attention of another wikipedia editor you can "ping" them by including a link to their user page (e.g. User:Req: Science Law Chess--it doesn't have to be a bare link, a template like {{u|Protonk}} works) in a talk page comment. Because I wasn't pinged, I didn't see this for a few weeks. If you ping someone they'll likely see it the next time they log on. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Trent Article - Photograph and Citations

Protonk, I have had to read about the Non-free use rationale, and proper "fair use" tags for uploaded photos, before I understood the simplicity of the creative commons phrase "CC-BY". I've contacted Mr.Trent, who is currently busy competing at the Gibraltar Open. Nevertheless, I expect to have the photograph added to his profile soon. Currently, the link to the photograph's upload page has been removed, what is the best method to it re-upload it?

Also, I see below that the profile has been accepted and reviewed by Arthur goes shopping. There is a banner above the article that it is missing citations and the article received a low grade. Perhaps this grade is due to the missing photograph, but Arthur should be aware that there are 37 citations preserved in the article's history for validation of content.

I have been chipping away at this article in my spare time, and am glad that it is finally accepted. Thank you both for your help, and I will be happy to work with both of you to improve its quality. Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I've swapped the FIDE "Meet the Commentators" profile with his employer's profile in citations. I had refrained from using this after reading the discussion for his prior article deletion - that his article's only citation was from a subjective Chessbase profile. But as I have mentioned, it does includes his childhood. Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RSLC. Don't worry too much about the article grading ... it is really just a very rough guide to where the article is on the quality development. I almost never grade an article higher than C class when approving it from Draft status, so actually C is fairly good.

You may be misinterpreting Protonk's comment about needing to see 2 or 3 independent sources that cover the subject in depth. I don't think Protonk meant that the article must only have 2 or 3 sources, but that those 2 or 3 really strong sources do need to exist and be clearly indicated. Of course, the "can't see the wood for the trees" problem when trying to get a Draft accepted is that if there are dozens of references to non-independent or non-reliable sources scattered throughout the Draft, it's much harder to notice the 2 or 3 strong sources even if they are there.

Article gradings are based on the article's current status, so things in the article history can't really be taken into account. It is probably worth adding some of the references back in, so for example the Scacchierando.it source would be an entirely appropriate reference to add as an inline citation after facts that it supports. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lawrence Trent has been accepted

Lawrence Trent, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call

Hello, Req: Science Law Chess. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]