Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 19:04, 8 January 2008.

---

Chess

previous FAR

I don't know who the nominator is. Notified WP Chess, WP Strategy games‎, User:Ioannes Pragensis, User:Bubba73 and User:Andreas Kaufmann‎. --Kaypoh (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has many problems:

• Referencing is not FA standard:
  • Only 1 reference in "Rules" section.
  • Paragraph 2 of "Predecessors" section has no references.
  • Paragraph 5 of "Birth of a sport (1850–1945)" section has no references.
  • Paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of "Post-war era (1945 and later)" section has no references.
  • Last two paragraphs of "Modern" section has no references.
  • Only 1 reference in "Notation for recording moves" section.
  • First two paragraphs of "Strategy and tactics" section has no references.
  • Only 2 references in "Fundamentals of strategy" section.
  • First paragraph of "Fundamentals of tactics" section has no references.
  • First and last paragraph of "Opening" section has no references.
  • Only 1 reference in "Middlegame" section.
  • Only 1 reference in "Endgame" section.
  • No references in "Chess composition" section.
  • Last three paragraphs of "Organization of competitions" has no references.
• The article is poorly organised.
  • The "Rules" section has no info about the how each piece moves.Fixed
  • The "Strategy and tactics" and "Notation for recording moves" sections should go after the "Rules" section. Then the "Competitive" play section. After that should be the "Variants" and "Computers" section which are about other types of chess. Last should be the "Mathematics" and "Psychology" sections which are about the study of chess that is not about the moves, and the "Place in culture" section. The structure is OK.
  • The "Variants" section needs more info.
  • Some paragraphs are too short.
• The lead section is too long.Fixed.
• References 4, 9, 10 and 15 have formatting problems.Fixed.

--Kaypoh (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I would take issue with some of your comments:
    1. I don't think the rules section could give a useful treatment of all the piece moves in a reasonable amount of space, so this detail is best off being broken into the subarticle.
    2. What's the reason behind the order of sections you recommend? I kind of like bringing the interesting history and culture sections to the front and moving the technical details to the rear.
    3. Since there's no minimum number of references, telling how few footnotes appear in a section isn't very useful; it would be more helpful to indicate which statements you feel are likely to be challenged and why so. For instance, the materially in the rules section seems very unlikely to be disputed by anyone.
  • Thanks, Christopher Parham (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Referencing: As far as I know, there is no rule for exact number of references in a paragraph. I agree with Christopher Parham, you should give explanation, why this or that is challenged, and then we can discuss the matter further. Otherwise it is a pure formalism.
  • The "Rules" section has no info about the how each piece moves: Agree, I will revert it there from a previous version.
  • The "Strategy and tactics" and "Notation for recording moves" sections should go after the "Rules" section etc. Is a matter of taste, I like more the current structure. But if a majority of editors will wish another version, I am not strictly against it.
  • The "Variants" section needs more info. Disagree, "Variants" are not "International chess", which is the article about.
  • Some paragraphs are too short. Which ones?
  • The lead section is too long. Should be long, because the article itself is very long and rich. But I will try to shorten it a bit.
  • References 4, 9, 10 and 15 have formatting problems. I see that only 4 has a problem, and I will fix it. What is bad on 9, 10 and 15?

Thanks,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Kaypoh, I do not understand your first sentence "I don't know who the nominator is". If we are talking of the nomination of Chess to FAR, I thought it was you ?
• The last FAR on this article was in December 2006. Does that mean this article will go under a FAR every year ? Just putting some concerns on the Talk page and asking the help of the WikiProject Chess could be a simpler way to get the concerns addressed, could'nt it ?
• I would agree with most of Pragensis' comments: we would need a bit more detail about your constructive remarks so that we can assess them.

Thanks anyway for giving us the opportunity to improve this crucial article! SyG (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I notified the main contributors and WikiProjects, and I am supposed to notify the person who nominated the article for FAC, but I don't know who it is. If the article is always at featured quality then it will not have an FAR every year.

There is no minimum number of references but when there are so many unreferenced paragraphs, you have a problem. References always go after a comma or full stop, with no spaces in between. But if you agree that the structure is OK, no need to change it. --Kaypoh (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the references, so that they all come after a punctuation now. SyG (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will strike that. I see the lead section is a bit shorter now, so I will also strike that but try to make sure the lead is a summary and does not have details like "In 1997, a match between Garry Kasparov, then World Champion, and a computer proved for the first time that machines are able to beat even the strongest human players." Since a few say the structure is OK I strike that also. The biggest problem is not enough references, and the second biggest problem is that it is not well written. You can see many short paragraphs with only one or two sentences, and English mistakes. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Close FAR, seriously reviewed less than a year ago, I see no compelling reason for a new review. Further, I asked Kaypoh not to overwhelm FAR with multiple noms, and this is the fourth. Considering the number of articles with serious issues, this is not a productive use of FAR time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So you let lousy articles have the FA star? There is a good reason for a new review. The article has many unreferenced paragraphs and is not well written. I waited for the Premier League and Macintosh FARs to go to FARC before filing this one. That's why I create FARs but don't put them on the main FAR page. Somebody else put the FIFA World Cup FAR on the main FAR page before I want to. I think I can find many lousy FAs which should not be FA. Only after the Premier League and Macintosh FARs are closed and this one and the FIFA World Cup FAR go to FARC, then I will add a new FAR to the main FAR page. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You do nothing for the credibility of your case by calling this a "lousy article." -Stellmach 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is not a very lousy article but it is not good enough to be FA because it is not well written and has many unreferenced paragraphs. I see the Rules section now has info on how each piece moves, so I will strike that. Keep improving the article. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Close FAR, I agree with SandyGeorgia. The bad reference and lack of rules were corrected, and now I see no further major problems. Minor issues can be solved on the discussion pages without formal FAR.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not close until all problems are fixed. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All problems are never fixed. FAR is for problems which are not compatible with the FA status, and I do not see such problems now. The other -minor or debatable- problems are to be discussed on the talk page or you can try to fix them yourself.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the rest of these issues are related to lack of references, but are not specific. Perhaps the proper thing to do would be to add {{fact}} tags to the statements that need references? Blanket "section has insufficient references" statements are not very useful in this respect, IMO HermanHiddema (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my English is not very good. I mean, do not close the FAR until you improve the article so that it is good enough for FA. An article with so many unreferenced paragraphs is not good enough for FA. If there are only a few unreferenced paragraphs, you can ask me what I want to "challenge", but there are so many unreferenced paragraphs. But that is not the only issue. The article is not well-written and there are many short paragraphs. The Premier League FAR is closed and the Macintosh one is on FARC, going to close. The FIFA World Cup one is also on FAR, and Secret took it, so it is not mine. So you have no reason to close this when the article is not good enough for FA. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

But your English is well enough to understand our rules and usances; please read WP:V, WP:FACR and WP:WHEN. This is all about when and why cite. Please read it and tell me where you see the rule "each paragraph has at least one reference".--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Close FAR A heck of a lot of work was done to save this article's status a year ago and current issues are maintenance not deep-seated. Article still represents the best of our work. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.