Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/En passant/1

En passant[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues addressed. Kept. 48JCL (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification tags- whole section is uncited. Some sources may be unreliable. A bit many primary sources to my likings. If this is not fixed by 29 May 2024, then this article shall be demoted to C class. 48JCL (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section with no citations is En passant#Chess variants. It was added largely in a couple of edits in January and March 2021. The question of which variants have en passant and which do not is not one that I have seen discussed in my reading, and I would be happy to remove the whole section, if there were consensus to do so. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "failed verification" tag is on the citation of McCrary's article in Chess Life. The article is interesting, and discusses en passant, but it does not support the claim that the earliest references were from the 16th century.

That citation was added last November, by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing! Before it was added, we weren't any better off, because the claim that the earliest references were from the 16th century wasn't supported by any cited source at all.

I would have guessed that Murray's A History of Chess would at least discuss the question of when en passant was introduced, but I don't see it. On page 812, he mentions en passant in listing the differences in the rules used in Spain versus in Italy, and on page 815, he mentions it in connection with Ruy Lopez's book. One can infer from this that the rule was referenced in the 16th century, but not that this was the "earliest" century. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that whole section got removed, wouldn’t this article now fail criteria 3? 48JCL (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The summary also got removed @Bruce leverett 48JCL (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't have a reference for the first appearance of the rule being in the 16th Century, let's say that it was by (or no later than) the 16th Century, since it was in Ruy Lopez's book. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett @Bubba73 would it be possible to add the previous section back with some sources? If not, I will keep either way 48JCL (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to the section on Chess Variants. I and another editor opined that this section could be removed, and nobody spoke up for it, so somebody removed it. If you want to make a case for it, go ahead.

The point of my own complaint was that if no one out there really wants or cares about en passant in chess variants, we don't have to discuss it in Wikipedia. There are few hard-and-fast rules about what material is worth including in an article, but lack of notability is certainly something that should be considered. Although I myself might be curious about which chess variants have en passant, my own curiosity isn't important.

BTW, since there are two threads of discussion here, one about chess variants, and the other about history of en passant, it would be helpful to try to keep them physically separate, rather than asking about chess variants in a reply to a suggestion about Ruy Lopez. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.