Talk:Adolf Anderssen/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello. I am starting a review of this article. Please bear with me as I'm a new member and this is the first review I've started. I chose Anderssen because I'm interested in chess and have studied his "Evergreen" game and others. --KenKt (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article and compared it against the immediate points. There are no problems here and a full review can proceed. Comments re each of the quick points are:

Reliable sources – there are plenty of sources and none seem suspect
The article is written objectively and there is no instance of non-neutral opinion
There are no cleanup banners
There are no recent disputes (there was one minor argument in 2007)
It is not a current event so this last point is not applicable

I hope to find time to complete a full review during the next seven days. --KenKt (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KenKt, I look forward to hearing from you. --Philcha (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I have performed what I would call an initial detailed review with the purpose of tidying up the article to eradicate minor errors and make minor adjustments or improvements. I will put the review on hold for a few days now to allow you to address the following points which, although some may seem trivial, will do much to improve the overall quality of the article. Incidentally, I have taken the view that this article will one day go forward to a featured article review and I believe I should make recommendations that will ultimately assist that goal too, although a lot more detailed content will of course be needed to achieve FA status.

1. I made several small changes to tighten wording, increase clarity and modify syntax — please check all of these to ensure that none of them affect any essential meanings

No issues that I can see. --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have inserted "fact" tags where I think the article needs additional citations: it may well be that there are cases of one citation covering a whole paragraph but, if that is so, it would be as well to make one citation cover no more than a couple of sentences.

Citations added for:

Chess problems 1842
Mags he (co-)edited. Also moved this to section "Influence on chess", since the mention of the London 18952 tournament spoiled the chronological flow.

Removed "For the next few years Anderssen was considered by many people to be the world's best player, but as he needed to earn a living, he had to return to his teaching profession after the competition" as his almost total lay-off from competitive chess is covered by ...

Moved the well-sourced para about his negligible competitive activity 1852-1858 to start of section "Morphy match, 1858".

Removed "At Leipzig, the participants of the Anderssen "Jubilee celebration" (Jubiläumsfeier), delegates of various chess clubs, took the decision to establish the national German Chess Federation (Deutscher Schachbund, DSB) and to hold international DSB congresses every two years." --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Was Anderssen not a grandmaster? Or is that a later title?

Later, see Grandmaster (chess). --Philcha (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. "Anderssen first came to the attention of the chess world when he published a collection of chess problems in 1842". Do you have details of this first publication: name of book, publisher, etc.?

Name only, added. --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. "Anderssen was the king of European tournaments from 1851 to early 1878, taking first prize in over half of the events in which he played." You need to rephrase "king of" with something less subjective. Was he perhaps the most consistent player? Need a citation for this statement.

Edited to "... very successful in European tournaments ..." Citation added (same one that covers "His only recorded tournament failures were ..."). --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Need a citation in each row of both the "Tournament results" and "Match results" tables.

I'm not sure that's such a good idea. The first chess article with results tables was Alexander Alekhine (covers period 1907-1945; 93 entries for tournaments alone), and for a player with a really busy career a ref per line would lead to either more refs for the tables than for the text or refs with individual uses that wrap the alphabet several times. It would be even worse for a retired modern player, e.g. Anatoly Karpov played at the top level for 30 years, so with 4 tournaments per year (lower-ranked players compete more frequently than that) plus results of World Championship matches plus results of "mini-matches" in Candidates' Tournaments that would be close to 150 entries. --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Not all the online references have a retrieval date given.

The only one I can see is Find a grave .... Done. --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is useful. I will keep this on my watchlist and come back to it when it is ready for further review. It is a very interesting and readable article. --KenKt (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further points

Re GAC3:

Ideally, I would like to see more of Anderssen's private life but it does appear to have been unusually quiet and uneventful. Re his teaching career, did he ever retire from this or continue until his death (aged only 60)?

Sources agree that Anderssen's private life was "unusually quiet and uneventful". In the much poorer economy of the times, most people did not retire, they worked as long as they were able and then depended on the charity of relatives. See all the notes about money values; if you do a little pro-rating between the wage-based and price based values, you'll see that real incomes, i.e. inflation-adjusted, were minute by modern standards, leaving most people with no opportunity to save for retirement. Wilkins Micawber in David Copperfield was not much of a caricature. --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chronological approach to his chess career works well on the whole but I think some interleaving is needed between "Morphy Match, 1858" and "Other Matches 1851-1862". I think the article needs more information about Anderssen's doings during this period as it gives the impression that he was playing very occasionally, when he must surely have been playing individual matches or else devising problems or researching. I would combine these two sections and work through the period 1851-62 chronologically. By all means give prominence to the Morphy match.

The content reflects the sources. Remember that the first ever international tournament was London 1851, and AFAIK the only others that would qualify between 1851 and 1862 were the London Club Tournament of 1851 (see Howard Staunton), Birmingham 1857 and possibly one in Dublin. The first international tournament outside the British Isles was Paris 1867. It was a vey different world.

An earlier section mentions his on-going activities as a problem composer and editor of chess mags.

Chess research was very limited in those days, partly by time and money constraints, and partly by shortage of information about who was playing what elsewhere. In Anderssen's lifetime there were only two major sources of analysis: the writings of Howard Staunton, and von der Lasa's Handbuch des Schachspiels (first published in 1843). François-André Danican Philidor's Analyse du jeu des Échecs (editions in 1749, 1777, 1790) is now regarded as historically important in chess theory, but its long-term strategic approach ("the Pawn is the soul of chess") was out of fashion in the swashbuckling mid-19th century, "an era when shallow tactics were still the rule" (Hartston, cited in Howard Staunton). --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the section lead "Four years after being defeated by Morphy," as it infers that nothing else happened in between. Pending

Again the content reflects the sources. I spent hours Googling (see the sources for the results tables), and that only confirmed Fine's comments about the extreme rarity of organised chess competitions. Anderssen's chess career from 1870 onwards supports that: once tournaments within reasonable distance of his home became frequent, he competed quite actively. Anderssen had a teaching job that both supplied a reliable income and restricted his free time. There were chess pros by the 1860s, but their main income was not from competition but from exhibitions (see Joseph Blackburne) or games for moderate stakes against well-heeled enthusiasts (see Wilhelm Steinitz, Emanuel Lasker) - an insecure lifestyle for a cautious man like Anderssen, who was also supportig his mother and sister. --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misled you here. I meant the words "Four years after being defeated by Morphy," should be removed. The section from that point onwards is fine. I'll make that change myself to save time. --KenKt (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re GAC6b:

I'm not entirely comfortable with the placing of the later life image as it extends into the next section and I wonder if it would be better placed on the left and slightly higher without breaking the text. This is a minor point but as there are still a few other things to be addressed I will leave this one open too. Pending

Moved the later life image down. --Philcha (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review summary: Pass

In my view, the article should be rated against the good article criteria as follows:

1. Well-written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

The article is readable and very interesting. There are no distractions posed by spelling or grammar problems and the prose is written to a good standard.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

I did wonder if I might be confronted with chess terminology but the article handles this very well and only a reader who knows absolutely nothing about chess might have a problem. The layout is good and has suitably arranged sections with appropriate headers; and I like the chronological approach. There are no objectionable words, it is not fiction and there are no listing problems. I think the lead will need a lot of fine tuning if the article goes to FA but it poses no problems that I can see for GA purposes.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout

A little bit of work was needed during the review to secure all references but it has been completed and it now meets the requirement.

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons

All quotations and pertinent facts are suitably cited. I agreed with the editor's view that a citation per row in the two tables would be cumbersome and the sources are grouped at the top of each table except in a few cases which are exceptional and a singular source is indicated. There are no controversial statements and nothing related to living persons.

(c) it contains no original research

There is no suggestion of original research.

3. Broad (i.e., ample) in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

Ideally, I would have liked to see more of Anderssen's private life but it does appear to have been unusually quiet and uneventful. The chronological approach to his chess career works well on the whole but I think the FAR will look for more detail and it will be in this area that most of the work will be needed to bridge the gap between GA and FA.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

The focus is very good and the chronological approach has aided this because key developments in his career are handled in their turn and without undue emphasis.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias

No problems.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

No problems.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

All the images are actually or effectively public domain as they are dated before 1879 and I cannot see any problems around their usage.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The images, information box and chess problem are all appropriate and so are their captions.

A very interesting and readable article. Well done. --KenKt (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]