Talk:Wilhelm Steinitz/GA1

GA Review

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

The article looks pretty good so far: I'm starting with a cursory glance and pointing out errors I see through that, then in a couple days I'll read it in greater detail and give a final review.

Preliminary fixes:

• Avoid one-sentence paragraphs. They don't make for good sentence flow.
• Convert the writings section to prose.
• I'd suggest converting notable games to prose as well, though that one I can understand keeping in a list form.
• If you can blend the Miscellsaneous section into the rest of the article that would be helpful. If not, no big deal.
  • The above I'll go into more detail on in the review below, though they still need to be fixed.

Review - fixes needed:

• There seems to be many issues with flow. I fixed what I could, and I'll post below what else I could find (Copyediting's not my strong suit and this article could best use that).
• "Steinitz was unskilled at managing money and lived in poverty all his life." Either blend this sentence with the lead or, if it's not too important, leave it out of the lead. No one-sentence paragraphs.

Tacked on to preceding para. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is there nothing about his parents or early family? If not that's fine, just checking to ensure completion.

I've seen only what's in the first para of section "Life and chess career". --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Life and Chess Career I feel needs to be split. 25 paragraphs in 1 section is too much (though some of them should be combined, see below)

See #Article structure below. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Daniel Harrwitz had "taken over" all of Steinitz' clients at the London chess club, who had been Steinitz' main source of income" Could there be more detail about these "clients"? There's no mention of his prior job.

In those days resident pros at big clubs made a living by playing games for modest stakes against well-heeled enthusiasts - the "clients" Steinitz metioned. However I know of nothing that specifically said that's what Steinitz was doing, so going into more details would raise problems with WP:SYN.

Part of the problem is that sources focus on his later dominance as a player, his founding of the formal World Chess Championship (replacing various partisan claims that "X is the greatest"), his importance as the single-handed inventor of positional chess and the controversies aroused by his ideas. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Steinitz had married a lady named Caroline (born 1846) earlier in the 1860s, and their daughter Flora was born in 1867. The couple had no other children." Work this into another paragraph, awfully short to be on its own.

See #Article structure below. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to use semicolons in areas where there should be periods. I would suggest fixing this, though if i have a free hour tomorrow I can do this step.
• There seems to be a few run-ons as well. No need for 50-word sentences.

Which? --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Steinitz' only daughter, Flora, died in 1888 at the age of 21." One sentence paragraph. Perhaps there should be a separate section for family? Just a suggestion, if you have a better idea I encourage trying it.

See #Article structure below. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• There are some colons that should be semicolons also, going back to the punctuation issue.
• Don't start sentences with "but".
• "In February 1897 the New York Times prematurely reported his death in a New York mental asylum." one-sentence paragraph

See #Article structure below. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Lasker, who took the championship from Steinitz, wrote, "I who vanquished him must see to it that his great achievement, his theories should find justice, and I must avenge the wrongs he suffered."" again, one-sentence paragraph

Tacked on to preceding para. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Convert the Writings section to prose.

Done. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Convert the Notable Games section to prose.

Games are normally presented as a list in chess articles - see Adolf Anderssen, Howard Staunton, Alexander Alekhine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Max Euwe, Richard Réti, Aron Nimzowitsch, Paul Charles Morphy, etc. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Blend the miscellaneous section into the article where you can.

I'd be quite happy to scrap the section. If you look at the cited web page you'll see a lot of racist claptrap - more benign than Hitler's but racist just the same. As for postage stamps, postal services will put anything on a stamp as sales to collectors are pure profit for them (I did some work as a consultant to a postal service). --Philcha (talk)

Overall, there are parts of the article that greatly impressed me, yet other parts that I find concerning. I'll put in on hold and give you a week to fix it, though i can add on a couple days if great progress is being made. Wizardman 20:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Article structure

First off, there's little material available about Steinitz's personal life: born 1836, the son of hardware retailer; married Caroline (born 1846) some time in the 1860s; daughter Flora was born in 1867; Flora died in 1888; Caroline died in 1892; some time after that he married again and had 2 children; premature report of his death in 1897; died a pauper 1900. I could try a bio section in a sandbox page and post a link, but I think it would be very short.

I would prefer to break the chess bio into smaller sections if I could see a way. The easy parts are the beginning ("Early stages of career": Vienna championships 1859-1861, London 1862, matches before Anderssen 1886) and the end ("Final stages of career": after losing the title to Lasker in 1894). The period including his wins over Anderssen (1866) and Zukertort (1872) could be titled "Rise to the top". But these would be very short sections. The big problem is that from 1873 to 1893 all the themes are intertwined: his development of a new and, for most that period, controversial approach; his series of 3-year breaks from competition while he refined his theories, coming out only to squash an upstart or try out his latest ideas; the resulting debates about whether he really was the top player; the "Ink Wars" and the conspiracy that led to his leaving The Field and, after an encouraging reconnaissance visit (1882), moving to USA (1883); his final victory over his main theoretical and journalistic opponent, Zukertort (1886); his willingness, once he'd made his point, to cooperate with a plan to replace him as World Champion; the growing acknowledgement that the only way to beat him was to use his approach. It looks like for Steinitz it was a 20-year theoretical debate punctuated by occasional practical demonstrations. No source actually says that outright, although the quotes from the book of the Hastings 1895 chess tournament and Em. Lasker ("He was a thinker worthy of a seat in the halls of a University. A player, as the world believed he was, he was not ...") come close. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I see what you mean. I guess it's mainly an issue of readability, since a 20 paragraph cluster would make it difficult for a reader to properly pace themselves, as there's nowhere to stop. 1873 to 1893 being intertwined I can understand. What could be a viable option is just to split it in three; pre-1873, 1873-93, and post-93. The median would still be long, but it wouldn't be overwhelming. Wizardman 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Had a go, see how you like it. I've also combined all the personal stuff except his birth.

If you're happy with the new structure then I think it's time to look at copyedit issues. --Philcha (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better now. :) I'll give this another review later today and see if I find anything else to fix. I think only wording/punctuation issues are left. Wizardman 17:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, all I need fixed are the grammatical and punctuation issues. Wizardman 23:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? --Philcha (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through the article and do a punctuation copyedit sometime in the next three days; after that i'll make a final decision (either pass or ask for a second opinion based on everything). Wizardman 18:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you see other things that concern you, I hope you'll give me a chance to fix them first. Mean while, Merry Christmas. --Philcha (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I went through again and cleaned up a bit of the puctuation. Other then that, I did not have any issues, so I will now pass the article. Well done. Wizardman 05:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)