Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to the review department of the WikiProject Chess. This page is primarily aimed to host the internal reviews of a candidate article for an A-Class quality assessment, see Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. It can also be used to host informal peer-reviews on chess-related articles.

Contents

Assessment criteria[edit]

Main criteria for classes[edit]

As explained at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, an A-class article should be at the stage of quality where it can at least be considered for featured article. However, objections over relatively minor issues of writing style or formatting can be avoided at this stage; a comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written article should qualify for A-Class status even if it could use some minor further copyediting.

As it is the last step before the FA-review, the article should:

  1. fully comply with all the GA-class criteria
  2. comply with the FA-class criteria, except possibly some minor style issues.

The GA-class criteria are presented at Wikipedia:Good article criteria while the FA-class criteria are explained at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

Further reading[edit]

For medium insights on the different classes please read:

For expert insights on the different classes you may also read the corresponding talk pages:

Review process[edit]

Nominate an article[edit]

To nominate an article, add it to the current candidates list below and write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes ~~~~.

Before nominating an article, it may be a good idea to put it through an automated peer-review, for example as explained at User:AndyZ/peerreviewer. This should help to detect the most obvious improvements needed, before the nomination.

Review an article[edit]

To review an article, follow the general steps explained at Wikipedia:Peer review, but bear in mind that an A-class review has slightly different objectives than a general peer-review.

As a first step it may be a good idea to put the proposed article through an automated peer-review. Given the context of chess, put particular attention to the fulfillment of the WP:NOR policy (e.g. for openings articles).

Some chess articles may also fall into the scope of another Wikiproject. For example the article on Alexander Alekhine is also in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. In such cases it may be a good idea to check that the article mostly complies with the Guidelines decided in this other WikiProject, as long as they are relevant for the given article. Possible conflicts between the Guidelines from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess and the Guidelines from the other relevant WikiProjects should be underlined.

Your review shall include a conclusion about the article, which can be:

  • Comment: when you have questions and objections that need to be addressed before you can give your assessment.
  • Support: which implies you think the article has reached the level of quality of A-class, and is almost ready to go for a FA-review.
  • Assess as X-class: please indicate the level of quality you think the article has achieved, be it Stub-class, Start-class, C-class, B-class or GA-class.

Close a review[edit]

Reviews can be closed by anyone after:

  1. a minimum of two editors (not too involved in writing the article) have reviewed the article,
  2. at least three weeks have elapsed since the start of the review process,
  3. at least one week has elapsed since the last comment was done in the review process.

A reviewed article will generally be promoted to A-Class if the following two conditions are met:

  1. it has garnered at least three endorsements from uninvolved editors,
  2. there are no substantive objections indicative of a major flaw in the article.

The process of closing the review shall be done in 3 steps:

  1. add a few sentences to the review explaining why you are closing the review (see conditions above) and what assessment the article has reached.
  2. copy/paste the review in the corresponding section "Closed reviews".
  3. change the assessment in the Talk page of the reviewed article.
  4. explain in the Talk page of the reviewed article that the review is closed and what assessment the article has reached. Put a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review so that anyone can come here to investigate the conclusions of the review.

A closed review cannot be reopened. The article shall go through a whole new review, but past positive comments can be considered as still valid, by default. That means if someone had assessed the article as A-class in a past review, it can be assumed that his assessment is still valid for a new review, unless the given assessor states otherwise.

Current candidates[edit]

I nominate McDonnell Gambit as in my opinion it is good enough, four example games and a well written introduction I believe mostly written by IHardlyThinkSo, I have written a bit of it myself but I don't think I am being to biased. Michael james campbell (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Closed reviews[edit]

Review of Ashot Nadanian[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Ashot Nadanian. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of Judit Polgár[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Judit Polgár. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of George H.D. Gossip[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/George H.D. Gossip. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of Rules of chess[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Rules of chess. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of Bughouse chess[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Bughouse Chess. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of First-move advantage in chess[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/First-move advantage in chess. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of Howard Staunton[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Howard Staunton. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of Swindle (chess)[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Swindle (chess). The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of Chess World Cup 2007[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Chess World Cup 2007. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of Alexander Alekhine[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Alexander Alekhine. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of Endgame tablebase[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Endgame tablebase. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review of Paul Morphy[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Paul Morphy. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Aborted reviews[edit]

Review of Adolf Anderssen[edit]

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Adolf Anderssen. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by Philcha[edit]

Adolf Anderssen - as good as I can make it right now Philcha (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Review by please_put_your_user_name_here[edit]

Review by please_put_your_user_name_here[edit]

Review by please_put_your_user_name_here[edit]

Conclusion by SyG[edit]

Unfortunately more than a year has passed now and noone has reviewed this article, so I am going to abort it for now. Of course anyone can reopen it if needed in the future. SyG (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

History of quality articles[edit]

Hereunder are the main steps undergone for the chess articles in a "quality process" (i.e. to reach GA-class or higher). For more details you can consult the "Article History" on the Talk page of each article.

  • 12/06/2006: Paul Morphy failed the GA-class (see the original delisting here)
  • 02/08/2007: This page is created
  • 10/03/2008: Paul Morphy failed the GA-class (see the original delisting here)
  • 30/09/2008: Rules of chess was considered good for GA-review by all the reviewers from the WikiProject Chess
  • 17/11/2009: En passant got its GA-review started