Wikipedia:Peer review/Checkmate/archive1

Checkmate

I think the article is close to FA status, but IMO, as a general guideline, an article should go through the peer review process before the FA process. I would like to know in advance why the article may fail a FA nomination. -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some points (feel free to address the ones you think are necessary, and to strike them from this list if you feel comfortable doing so):

Only four inline reference for the whole article. Could more be added?
Some parts could be considered inappropriate tone, like See Wikibooks - Chess/The Endgame for a demonstration of how the king and queen versus king mate is achieved., Again, see Wikibooks - Chess/The Endgame for a demonstration of how the king and rook versus king mate is achieved. and (see Troitzky line).
Most sections read like an instruction manual (Here are the two basic checkmate positions, This diagram shows the basic checkmate position, These diagrams show representatives , etc).
Make wikilinks more direct. In example, opposition in the Queen section is wikilinked against Chess terminology, when it should be wikilinked at Chess terminology#O or Opposition (chess). Another example is rank, pointing at Chess terminology as well.
Checkmate#Basic checkmates has checkmates bolded in the body. However, it is not necessary to bold it in that section. You can use italics in the word after the leading, although that is not necessary as the term is pretty well known.
Without references, some sections can be considered original research, weasel words or peacock terms (This checkmate is the most difficult to force,, With white to move, checkmate can be forced in at most sixteen moves from any starting position., checkmate can be forced in at most nineteen moves., etc.
~~Instead of * ''Main article: '', use {{main}}.~~
The article is mixing two types of inline references (see Checkmate#Origin of the word, in example, both {{ref}} and m:Cite/Cite.php). That is pretty confusing (for a minute I thought there was just one inline reference). Try consolidating both styles.
~~There are some red links. Some frown upon them when going for a featured article.~~ Redlinks in the references templates have been removed.
When using mdashes (like in captured — the) there should be no space between the dash and the surrounding words. If you want to add a space, use a ndash (in other words, either captured—the or captured – the). The dash guidelines explain this in deeper detail.

I think those are all the ones I can think of right now. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 03:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I would add to ReyBrujo and recommend some sort of different formatting for the explanations of the moves in the "Quick checkmates" section. I don't know what's traditional for chess articles on Wikipedia, but listing them as they are now (like they are words, with spaces in between them) is rather painful to read and seems unorganized. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, after the etymology, you dive straight into a list of the basic checkmate combinations. You might want to start by explaining that checkmate occurs when (a) all squares around the king are either occupied by a non-capturable piece or under threat themselves, and (2) the piece which threatens the king is neither capturable nor blockable. This is described in the article Check (board game), but is just as applicable if not more so to your article.
Also, on the diagrams you might want to use either highlighting or sweeping arrows to indicate which of the above mentioned squares the threatening pieces influence - it makes more sense for those who don't see that instinctively.
In conjunction with my first suggestion, you might want to include a few examples of things that are NOT checkmate, and explain why not.

Robert Rapplean 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]