Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Dana boomer 13:31, 13 October 2010 [1].

Chess[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: User:Bubba73, most prominent non-retired editor of article; also notified WP:CHESS

Large number of unsourced statements: *"Chess moves can be annotated with punctuation marks and other symbols. For example ! indicates a good move, !! an excellent move, ? a mistake, ?? a blunder, !? an interesting move that may not be best or ?! a dubious move, but not easily refuted."

  • Most of "Fundamentals of strategy" is unsourced.
  • [citation needed]s in "Fundamentals of tactics" section.
  • Under "opening" heading, "Most players and theoreticians consider that White, by virtue of the first move, begins the game with a small advantage. Black usually strives to neutralize White's advantage and achieve equality, or to develop dynamic counterplay in an unbalanced position." is unsourced.
  • "Middlegame" section reads poorly with three consecutive two-line paragraphs. Section is also lacking in sources.
  • "Chess composition" section has unsourced statements such as "Most chess problems exhibit the following features:"
  • Large number of dead links, at least one of which is formatted as a [1].
  • What makes ChessVariants.org a reliable source?
  • Or Chessgames.com?
  • Or ChessHouse.com?
  • Or Chessbase.com?
  • Or Metajedrez.com.ar?
  • Many refs are missing author, page or other relevant information.

Overall, the article is extremely messy and many of the sources are either dead or unreliable. I feel that the article has dipped far below FA quality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources ChessBase and ChessGames has been discussed on the Chess Project. ChessBase has the largest database of chess games and ChessGames.com is a smaller one that is online. The members of the chess project consider them to be reliable sources. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My other concerns still stand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on some of them. I can't do them all, though. (I didn't write any of the parts with the problems.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the one formatted as "[1]"? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was the "World Chess 2007" link which I changed. I'm happy to have a stab at re-drafting some of the middlegame paragraphs if that would help? Also, for the Ben Franklin quote, is this link better than the Metajedrez one? benfranklin300.orgFletch79 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily much of the basic rules can come from any old intro textbook, which even I have YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the main problem that it seems to me is that the history focuses on naming personalities but not changes in chess theory, which is more important, with respect to things such as the 19th century obsession with material and accepting gambits, whereas Queen's Gambit accepted is thought to be very bad nowadays, and how in the old days, swamping the midfield with pawns was regarded as paramount whereas in the 20th century, things like Nimzo-Indian, King's Indian etc became regarded as sound etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen's Gambit Accepted "is thought to be very bad nowadays"? Odd - Kasparov still plays it, and has a plus score, against the strongest players in the world. Krakatoa (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He may mean the King's Gambit. As far as the history, I added in some of what Kasparov said about how Botvinnik and Fischer revolutionized chess. The hypermodern era and the approach of Steinitz were already in there. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recap the bullet points:

  • 1 - now referenced
  • 2 - major parts of "fundamentals of strategy" now sourced
  • 3 - CN in "fundamentals of tactics" - one eliminated, the other is still there, but is it something that someone would question? (I don't think so, so CN can be removed)
  • 4 - first move advantage now referenced
  • 5 - Middlegame section - I worked on this - moved some material and eliminated the short paragraphs. May need some more work - others have worked to improve this section
  • 6 - chess composition - some still unsourced, done. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 - dead links - still dead links done. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assume it's the "Searching for Bobby Fischer" link - is a link to the synopsis on imdb suitable?

Comment: Were these issues brought up on the talk page first before being brought to FAR? Last article FAR January 8 2008. Lambanog (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were not brought up on the talk page. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really, nominating for FAR in August while most people are on holidays... I find that kind of treatcherous. SyG (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I accept the article required a revision to meet the points raised above. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding criterion three:
    • File:Knight's tour.svg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (did the uploader create it or obtain it from a third-party source?)
    • File:Red King sleeping.jpg - Needs a verifiable source (what edition of Through the Looking Glass? US copyright term would be based on publication date, not pma, thus the importance.)
    • File:UigChessmen SelectionOfKings.jpg - Is Solipsist the same person as Andrew Dunn?
    • File:Capablanca-Lasker 1925.jpg - If the author is unknown, why is it being claimed s/he has been dead 70 years. US does not consider PMA for published works; what is the status in the US?
      • It was published in the USSR before 1946(?) so it is in the public domain. It also falls under historic image. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Russian Federation has retroactively restored copyrights to most USSR works. They, too, are based on author lifetime. Who is the author? There's no such thing in copyright law as a "historic image". Эlcobbola talk 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • From wp:Fair use "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is the image the subject of commentary? It is beeing used to illustrate the history of chess, and the specific game from which the image is taken does not seem to be mentioned in the text. Taemyr (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Wilhelm Steinitz2.jpg - Needs a verifiable source (hitherto deleted nl.wiki page is not acceptable).
      • Wilhelm Steinitz died in 1900, so that makes it before 1923.
        • The life span of the sitter and date of creation are irrelevant. Copyright term in Netherlands is 70 years after the death of the author, not the subject. Who is the author? When did s/he die? What is the source? We can then deal with status in the US, which is not necessarily the same as Netherlands, after those questions are answered. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The author is surely dead. Also, in the US, anything before 1923 is public domain. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • So prove it. Steinitz died in 1900. Let's say this work is from 1890 and created by a 30-year-old author (i.e. born 1860). Say that author lived to the age of 81 (i.e. died 1941) - perfectly possible. That would mean they've been dead less than 70 years. Who is the author? When did s/he die? What is the source? You're wrong about the US, too, but we'll get to that once you answer these questions. Эlcobbola talk 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, the author may have died less than 70 years ago, but from Wikipedia:Image_use_policy "In the U.S., copyright has expired on any work published anywhere before January 1, 1923." Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, the key word is published - quite different from "anything". Published is a term defined by USC 17 and is not the same as creation. It's why you need a source; then we can (usually) determine whether it was published. Also, this file is on the Commons, where images must be PD in both the US and country of origin, so the requirement of author information cannot be dismissed if it is to be hosted there. Netherlands does not consider publication date. You'll also note that WP:IUP requires a source. Эlcobbola talk 23:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I didn't upload it and I didn't add it to the article. It is in Commons, which says it is in the public domain, so it isn't my problem. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's in the article. Featured articles must meet criterion three. It's a problem. I'm uninterested in these IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses. Feel free to ping me when you've actually addressed these issues. Эlcobbola talk 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • "Fair use" applies to this image. I don't own the article. There are probably thousands of images in Commons that you need to concentrate on. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Lucena1497.jpg - Needs a verifiable source.
    • File:JaquesCookStaunton.jpg - How can we verify permission from Frank A. Camaratta, Jr.? This appears to need an OTRS ticket. Эlcobbola talk 18:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got permission from Cameratta before I uploaded it. I thought I did submit the OTRS info. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in the system and you did indeed. Apparently the OTRS volunteer forgot to tag the image back in 2006. Note that the author did not specifically agree to a GFDL license, but instead to certain terms (which indeed make the image sufficiently free). I've tagged the image and corrected the license. Эlcobbola talk 21:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is this going, everyone? If most of the work has been done, the reviewers need to be pinged to come back and say so; if not, this should probably move on to FARC. I'll give it a couple more days and if no-one comes around to say this should be kept before FARC, I'll move it down to the voting period.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana boomer (talk • contribs)

I think all of the original points have been addressed, except the "citation needed" in "Fundamentals of tactics". But that seems so non-controversial that I don't think a citation is really needed. Someone has issues with some of the images, but that is not really a problem with the article. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The images do need to be fixed though, before the article can be kept as a FA. Per WP:WIAFA, criterion three is "It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." So, Elcobbola's concerns must be dealt with - and snarky responses such as "it's not my problem" are unlikely to gain you ground in resolving those concerns. Once the above reviewers concerns are dealt with feel free to ping them and ask them to strike resolved concerns and add any new ones. Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the images are in Commons as free. If they are not free, that is an issue for Commons, not for this article. It needs to be addressed in Commons. I don't think there is a way to claim "fair use of a non-free image" if Commons already has it as "free". Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, none of the images in question are that important to the article - they are just there to enhance it - so take them out if you object to them being there. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't add any of the questioned images to the article or upload them, so I don't know the source. I had to search for the Lucena page. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images used in en.wiki articles must follow en.wiki policy (WP:IUP) and, if FAs, meet the criteria (WP:WIAFA), neither of which consider which server the image is on - that is merely "physical" location. Issues are likely very simple to resolve with rudimentary research. I've corrected issues with File:Red King sleeping.jpg, as an example. Alternatively, images can be replaced with properly licensed and sourced alternatives, or removed. Anyone can contribute to the Commons; files there are every bit as likely to have problems as local files. Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the image of Wilhelm Steinitz, so now I'm of the view that all issues had been resolved or dropped. If there is any outstanding issue please identify them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding issues remain unstricken. Эlcobbola talk 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell according to the follow up dialog all the unstricken issues have been resolved. But to aid clarity and for the removal of doubt I've struck them all. If there are any unresolved be specific and identify them below. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SunCreator, I believe Elcobbola was referring solely to image issues, of which a couple remain unresolved and unstriken above. I have pinged TenPoundHammer to come and take another look at the article, and have asked another reviewer to come take a look. I am fairly optimistic at this point that the article will be able to be kept before FARC, if any concerns brought up by the two reviewers I have asked and any others that stop by are taken care of quickly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some books in the footnotes don't specify a page the statement came from, and I'm expecting Malleus to come here with and invite and say that the prose isn't good enough, because it isn't really. Also some of the prose is questionable in describing the beauty of some stunning/brilliant moves YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also some basic formatting stuff. Web refs without publishers (see #65 O'Neill), books giving incorrect publishers (#63, this should be formatted as a book, with the proper publisher, date, etc, not as a website with Google Books as the publisher), etc. Lots of short paragraphs - combine or expand. Text sandwiched between images. Some books in split format (between references and notes), others in full format in notes. Cn tags - fix or remove with justification. Dana boomer (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's getting there, but it still needs work:
    • "Brilliant combinations – such as those in the Immortal Game – are considered beautiful and are admired by chess lovers." — unsourced
    • "Kasparov lost his Classical title in 2000 to Vladimir Kramnik of Russia." — unsourced
    • Agree with the short paragraphs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "... middlegame, usually the fiercest part of the game" fiercest?
  • the image of the tactical puzzle from Lucena's book adds little… can't even distinguish the pieces.
    • Agree. Image belongs in history section not tactics. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The oldest surviving printed chess book, Repetición de Amores y Arte de Ajedrez (Repetition of Love and the Art of Playing Chess)" I thought the oldest printed chess book was The Game and Playe of the Chesse (1474), mentioned in the culture section
  • "After the death of Alekhine, a new World Champion was sought in a tournament of elite players ruled by FIDE" the tournament was ruled by FIDE, or the elite players were?
  • "he lost the title to the Latvian prodigy Mikhail Tal" Haven't heard of Tal being called a prodigy before… I'd ask if this is what the source says, but this paragraph has no citations :)
    • A skeptic might suggest that Kasparov called Tal a prodigy in order to make his own Wch winning age record seem even more amazing... but it's sourced and that's good enough here. Sasata (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wierd; I've never met anybody who had that title. I guess my national federation doesn't feel it worthy to pay FIDE for these titles. Sasata (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while 300 million people play intermittently." does the source define "intermittently"?
    • removing 'play intermittently', not in citation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • prose is clunky in some places; ping Malleus and offer him twice his usual fee
    • While the services of Malleus are always welcome, he rarely responses until there is a clear case for improving pose. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a number of fact tags to places I thought warranted them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasata (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 August 2010
    • Updated some, still a few more to go. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some fact tags are now sourced while some unsourced parts have been removed. Article currently fact tags free. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the fixes. I think the article should be kept as a FA after a copyedit. Sasata (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed as nominator. So many editors are taking to this that I think it doesn't even need to go to FARC. If I find anything else that needs addressing, I can just hit up one of the many editors that are tending to this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've standardized the journal and book citations. Please check for errors. In fact, I think I put at least two of the books in the Further Reading section instead of References, so someone could fix that. I didn't change the web citations because many of them don't have authors and I don't know what to do with them. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comments – I still see a few reference that could use further information. There are a few cites (such as numbers 7, 40, 63 and 99) that are only links with titles, missing publisher and access date, in addition to any authors. Several others are missing at least one item. The refs should be checked out and improved as needed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added info to #7 but it has no author listed. (The last time FIDE listed authors for their rulebook was in the 1985 paper edition.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto #40, 63, and 99. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure if lede/intro is comprehensive enough to standalone as an adequate summary of the article, per WP:LEAD - this should be expanded upon a bit more. "For a demonstration of the gameplay, see a sample chess game." - this seems a bit tacky and cheesy to link direct as a hyperlink within article text, should could be removed, and handled in See also or External links sect. Much of the article appears to be getting into a step-by-step How to process, instead of an Encyclopedia article about the topic. -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link to the sample game moved to external links. I disagree about the "how to". It describes the rules objectively, much as paper encyclopedias do. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Two quick comments if i may, borderline nit-picking: (DONE)

  • actual text "In the diagrams, the dots mark the squares where the piece can move if no other pieces (including one's own piece) are on the Xs between the piece's initial position and its destination." is a bit confusing as the "Xs" in the diagrams do NOT mark the positions between start and destination position. Replace sentence with "In the diagrams, the dots mark the squares where the piece can move if no other pieces (including one's own piece) are on the direct line of squares between the piece's initial position and its destination." or something similar.
  • actual text "A game of chess is usually divided into three phases: opening, usually the first 10 to 25 moves, when players move their pieces into useful positions for the coming battle; middlegame, usually the fiercest part of the game; and endgame, when most of the pieces are gone, kings typically take a more active part in the struggle, and pawn promotion is often decisive." has three "usually" phrases making the sentence a bit awkward - maybe replace one or two "usually" phrases with similar different expressions.

I am quite new to Wiki, so please excuse possible format or other errors. This is a great article with what looks like an amazing amount of work put into it. GermanJoe (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your points have been addressed, thank you. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria of concern are sourcing, formatting YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved down to get a conclusion YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I said earlier, so much work was done throughout this FAR, and it appears to be ongoing. It's nice to see a FAR where something actually happens. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delist - One image concern has yet to be resolved. It's minor in that it can be easily remedied (e.g. removal), but a criterion three failure is a criterion three failure. Эlcobbola talk 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if there is no author information on File:Capablanca-Lasker 1925.jpg, this image should be removed to order to keep the FA status. JJ98 (Talk) 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two points: (1) it was published in the USSR in 1925, which makes it in the public domain (as with everything published in the USSR before 1940-something), (2) If it was not already listed as "free", it could be claimed as a "fair use" of a historic image. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bubba, this image needs to be fixed (or removed) and image clearance received from Elcobbola before this article can be declared "kept". Please see Elcobbola's and Taemyr's responses above about fair use and USSR free use. Just saying that something "could" be done is not enough - action must actually be taken. Dana boomer (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed the image several hours ago, even I think the article would be better with it. There have been at least three people criticizing that image. In less time than it takes someone to complain about it, they could have fixed it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (assuming image problem is solved by Bubba73s above comments), a few minor points for improvements though:
links
  • "players" as a basic English term needs no linking (links to stub anyway)
  • "Checkmate" is linked 4 times, consider removing 2 or even 3 links
prose
  • Lead 2nd para: "Computers have been used for many years to create chess-playing machines", awkward sentence with unclear relation between computers and machines, chess-playing "machines" are a subset of specialized computers. Also while technically correct, consider using a different term instead of "machines" (electronic devices?).
  • Lead 3rd para: "The tradition of organized competitive chess started during the 16th century" With what exactly? Small tournaments? Also this lead statement isn't mentioned in later text (History)?
  • Lead 4th para: "Chess is led ... by FIDE" - can a sport really be "led"? Consider some other phrase, maybe "Chess players worldwide are organized in FIDE".
  • Lead last sentence: "Some other popular forms ...., and there are many chess variants". The last half sentence sounds like a disconnected afterthought, consider replacing it with "among many additional diverse chess variants" to combine all parts of the sentence.
If i would be a bit more fluent in English, i'd work on those points myself. But so i just thought, i point them out. None of those points are essential for a possible delist in my opinion. The prose is generally good, comprehensive and no glaring syntax errors. (GermanJoe (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
All of those have been fixed except "organized competitive chess started during the 16th century". Offhand, I am not sure what kind - probably matches but could be tournaments. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to resolve this. Hooper & Whyld say that matches (a series of games) between individuals were recorded as early as the 9th century. The word "tournament" was used in connection with chess starting in 1841, but there may have been competitions before the word was used. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found some pretty interesting information regarding the supposedly first (European?) tournament held in Heidelberg, Germany in 1467. The website of the German national chess club has some information on it (google for "1467 chess tournament Heidelberg"). I will try to dig up some english language information and check reliability. GermanJoe (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the german source with most information about the 1467 tournament http://www.schachbund.de/chronik/1467/heidelberg/index.html I am not exactly sure, if it can be of use here, but it's certainly an interesting read (in German unfortunately). More background information can be found at http://www.schachclub-hirschau.de/schachgeschichte.htm (with a list of print sources included) GermanJoe (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History suggestion 3rd para closed. As i see it, the article is already very detailed and that minor, albeit interesting, tidbit would be better placed in the main history article than in this summary. Didn't find a good English source either. GermanJoe (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tending to weak keep - the article is pretty choppy. I have streamlined some of it. The history section looks wierd as it segues into discussing world championships...which is then not discussed until later. I think this would be better seguing onto the history bit. I have left one [citation needed] tag for something I hadn't heard before. There are some sections with several very short paras that would be good to combine, but it can be tricky given the content. It would be a shame for an article such as this to be delisted. 06:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I took out the part where you put the CN - I don't think it added to the article anyway. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No issues have been raised for over a month. I suggest the review is closed and any further concerns are raised on the talk page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Chess/archive3&oldid=1089082721"