Talk:1904 Cambridge Springs International Chess Congress

Article classification and External links

I initially came here to look at the conflicting project's classifications. However, there are article issues related to the B-class criteria:

1)- Sourcing and missing inline citations,

• There are unsourced sentences, paragraphs and "dangling sentences", which are unsourced sentences added after a source.

In the "Participants" section there is a lot of unsourced content. The American Chess Bulletin citation directly supports the second paragraph (inline citation) but the first paragraph and all below the second paragraph is unsourced.

• The second paragraph of the "Main tournament" section has two unsourced sentences (dangling) following the reference.
• The last paragraph in the "Pillsbury's revenge" section is deserving of a "Tootechnical" tag. As an encyclopedia for all ages as well as one for someone looking at new things, wording like "1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 (see diagram)" might as well be in a foreign language.
• The 1st paragraph of the "Cambridge Springs Defense" section is unsourced.
• Lots of unsourced content and "dangling" sentences in the "Rice Gambit Tournament" section.

2)- "External links": Excessive links in the "External links section has grown to five links which is at least one link (but more like two) than is usual. There is enough written about link bloat to justify a review. Disputing some of the links is mainly because of 1)- it appears one or more may qualify as a reliable source, so can be incorporated into the article, and at least one contains some facts and stats but this can be verified by reliable sources so nothing unique. There are citation templates that can be added.

External links: This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph of lead: Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

• • Please note: Removing and moving excessive links to the talk page for possible discussion is not BRD but maintenance. Appendices, such as this one and the "Further reading" section can be omitted without affecting article promotion.
• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. (Not relevant).
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)