Template:Did you know nominations/Levitsky versus Marshall

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Levitsky versus Marshall

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that in the chess game Levitsky versus Marshall, legend has that the winning move drew a shower of gold coins?

• Comment: The notability of the article rests almost entirely on the presence of the legend and the winning move.

Created/expanded by Jasper Deng (talk). Self nom at 04:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• First off, not a chess expert, so apologize for any blunders. Date is good, sources look good as well. However, I have a problem signing off on the length because of the way the "the game" section is written. The algebraic notation may well be very useful for chess fans, but for a casual reader it's impenetrable. I would like to see this rewritten in prose before passing, (or at least a prose summary of the game to augment the notation). Is this standard practice in our chess game articles? The Interior (Talk) 06:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. We always use algebraic notation, as at Kasparov versus the World, and there's a pretty good description of the special move itself at the end.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• This non-chess person cannot make head nor tail of most of what is being described. A short paragraph, maybe three or four sentences, summarizing the game in layman's terms, would go a long way. If you're not into it, I can ask a second opinion as to whether we can count the algebraic notation as prose. Because you've used quite a bit of quoting with the preceding sections, it's touch and go for the length requirement as it stands. The Interior (Talk) 06:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I'll try, but ultimately, one has to know at least the movement and value of the pieces to understand why this move is so special. I'll add a game summary paragraph using already-used sources.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the summary section. Helped me understand the game a bit better, anyway. Good work. The Interior (Talk) 06:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)