Talk:Magnus Carlsen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting any issues here that I can't easily fix myself, and then go to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for taking on the review. I'd like to bring this to FAC sometime this year, so don't be afraid to be nitpicky, or make suggestions for improvements that may extend beyond the GA criteria. Sasata (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

On my first pass, this looks very close to GA status--really excellent work. My comments are mostly nitpicks; the only issue I see that really matters by the GA criteria is the quotation in the final bullet point. I did some minor copyedits as I went, so please take a look to make sure I didn't accidentally introduce any new errors. One issue that I didn't quite resolve to my satisfaction is how "round robin" and "double round robin" should be hyphenated. The New York Times appears to spell it any which way, though, [1], so I think as long as it's internally consistent, it's okay.

• "with better tiebreaks scores" -- should this be "tiebreak scores"?

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Some names that recur frequently in this article (Anand, Polgar), could be reduced to only last name, instead of giving the full name with every mention. This isn't relevant to the GA criteria, though, just a side suggestion. One thing that seems more relevant to the "conciseness" criterion is giving the context of the players multiple times. For example, in the sentence "World Champion Viswanathan Anand, former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, American No. 1 Hikaru Nakamura, and British players Michael Adams, Nigel Short, David Howell, and Luke McShane", Kramnik has already been mentioned 14 times in the article, and his background as former world champ established. Anand is mentioned as World Champion many times as well--though it may be worth making it clear that he still held the title at the time of each tournament.

• I'll have to audit this more carefully. One (small) issue is that when the name of a player not previously mentioned is given in the same sentence with players already mentioned, it looks a bit odd to have a mixture of full and last names. Will work on this some more. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• " With early wins over Bacrot, Yue, and Topalov with white, Carlsen took the early lead, extending his winning streak with white in Nanjing to eight." -- should "white" be capitalized here? I'm not familiar enough with chess writing to be sure, but I notice the article seems to capitalize "white" in some instances but not others.

• White (or "Black") is capitalized when it refers to the player, not the pieces, so I think all instances are correct now. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• The abbreviation "Grandmaster (GM)" is introduced early in the article, and seems helpful, but the word "grandmaster" continues to be written out in most instances. Again, not a big deal for the GA criteria, but seemed worth pointing out.

• I've used the abbreviated form in the body, but kept the full word in the lead (to keep it friendlier to those less familiar with chess jargon). Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• "and considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time." -- I've certainly read this description in many places, but I wonder if it's worth adding a citation for this.

• Toccata quarta has added a source for this. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• The article doesn't mention Carlsen participating in Dortmund--is it worth including on the table of tournaments that he's won?

• Like TQ, I'm not sure if that table should stay, it's not easily sourced without the use of multiple citations that gives it the look of WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. I will raise the issue on the talk page and see if there's consensus for removing it. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• "in an opening called "very quiet game"" -- this quotation needs a source

-- Khazar2 (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been removed. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think it should.

• I'd say the fact that somebody was World Champion during a tournament should always be mentioned, but former titles and nationalities should be mentioned only once.

• Per WikiProject Chess#Capitalization conventions, it is correct.

• I agree it's a problem. Sasata, what do you think?

• Fixed.

• Speaking for myself (and a few others), the value of the table is dubious.

• Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like this all taken care of save for the table issue, but I'll take another look in the morning to be sure. Thanks for your speedy responses! -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Film producer J. J. Abrams" --just a quibble, but would it be preferable to call him "film director" here, as this is the role he's more famous for, with regard to this movie and others? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree and have changed it (it's also what the source calls him). Sasata (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass. A solid and excellent article. I particularly commend the editors for adding not just numeric wins and losses, but information on Carlsen's playing style overall and in individual tournaments or matches.