Talk:Garry Kasparov/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 17:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is substandard for GA and needs considerable work. There are two many short choppy sentences and paragraphs and too many sentences that begin "In <month year>, ...". Especially in the politics sections and the post-retirement chess sections, the article ends up being a list of events and actions and quotes, likely added to the article as they happened, without any thematic narrative cohesion or sense of relative importance. These parts of the article need a complete reexamination and reworking.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Existing citations are mostly okay, although some need additional specifics such as fns 75, 81, 154, 179, 180, just to pick a few examples. But there are over 40 cn tags now on the article (added after the nomination by another editor in the wake of a reverted first review) and that's a deal breaker. For some reason there's a history with this article of people thinking not every statement needs to be footnoted – see discussion at Talk:Garry_Kasparov/Archive_2#this_article_needs_more_references – but especially for a topic like this, which deals with both one of the greatest of all time at an activity and with politics – every statement really does need to be cited.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage seems reasonable at first look, but I didn't look at the subject further given the other issues.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   From a first look the article seems pretty much neutral, but again I didn't look further.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image licensing seems okay; many came through OTRS. The current top image is unfortunate, however, as it's from a bad angle and doesn't look like him. Even though it's not as recent, I think File:Kasparov-34.jpg would be better at the top, as it's easily recognizable as both the chess Kasparov and the political Kasparov.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The substandard prose and the missing citations are both major issues that will take considerable time and effort to correct. So this nomination is a fail.