I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- Pass or Fail:
Comments on GA criteria
- Images are illustrative diagrams which comply with guidelines, and have appropriate captions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Article has reference section. Currently the article names sources, and then transcribes long quotes from the source. It would be more appropriate and useful to take advantage of legally scanned copies, such as those provided on Google Books. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Prose is clear and readable. Will do any tidying up needed as I review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- NPOV. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- No Original Research detected. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Article is sourced and has appropriate inline citing. Tags have now been dealt with. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- A large proportion of the article is given over to WP:Embedded lists. Is this necessary? SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- The Rating equivalent section is mainly one long quote from one person. Are there other sources available to give others views on the relationship between the Elo rating system and handicapping? SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Broad coverage. I will do some more background reading to check on coverage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Lead doesn't meet WP:Lead. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There are citation needed tags. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- The Illustrative games section is rather long; and its value is anyway dubious and would need some discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- On hold for the standard seven days to allow for above issues to be addressed or discussed. I'm always open to extending that time as long as progress or communication is being made. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just a note that all significant contributors have been notified. We are halfway through the seven days and no work has been done on the issues raised (edits made on the article have not addressed the issues), and no contact made here or on my talkpage. This is heading towards a fail unless somebody takes the matter in hand. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)