Talk:Bobby Fischer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links:OK
• External links: Problems found
• Reference check:

1. 404: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBIT_FISCHER?SITE=AP - Dead
2. 404: https://www.createspace.com/211957
3. 404: http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_332337.html
4. 404: http://www.geocities.jp/bobby_a/list/p_54/54_0.htm
5. 404: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/asithappens_20080118_4495.mp3
6. 404: http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/232529/fischer-s-pinay-love-child-iceland-claim-inheritance
7. 404: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/news/13891951.html
8. 404: http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/event/wijk08/fischer.html
9. 404: http://www.goddesschess.com/chesstories/fischerend.html
10. 404: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/news/13891951.html
11. 403: http://www.uschess.org/docs/pdf/15EBactionsvolex02.PDF
12. 302 : http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_332337.html domain change
13. 301 : http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4403 - Changes sub-domain and redirect does not contain ".,?&"
14. 301 : http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4410
15. 301 : http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20040817a3.html
16. 301 : http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpjkKfonmIFJxdSyG535aNfW6rnQ
17. 301 : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3900793.stm
18. 301 : http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/frett.html?nid=1315727
19. 301 : http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3546
20. 301 : http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4392
21. 301 : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4102367.stm

Still some others.

Comments: This will take me a few days to do. For now, I will begin by pointing out the reference matter so that it can be fixed while I prepare the rest of the review. The 404s should be checked for archival. The 403 should be fixed or backed up as well. Several of the sources, included the dead ones, seem to be unreliable sources. Some of the dead sources have been dead for years as well. Please go through the Checklinks list and resolve as many as you can. This review will likely go beyond the hold for 7 days following its completion for the sheer size and depth of the article, even a month would be acceptable in my eyes. This article is extremely important to Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a notice that its been a week without responses, and I think I may have to fail it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I went through all the 404s and fixed the deadlinks. I also went through the 402 and 302. I'm not sure what you mean by a 301 in terms of what we can do to improve it. I must admit that the technical computer numbers are not something I am too familiar with, but I can assure you that we have been making the desired corrections to the page since you started the review process. Sirmouse (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about them then. I have a few questions about the reliable sources used. Could you please comment on Di Felice's books? Why are these, published through McFarland, reliable? Same with Horowitz. Why is a mention in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting needed? There is at least one improperly sourced claim like "A 2005 episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent, "Gone" is based on Bobby Fischer"[1] that is unsupported by the source. Other issues are the letter to Osama bin Laden which can be taken quite negatively and could be seen as another major issue. Some aspects such as the "Fischer clock" are lacking in details and cover more the patent details than its use. There is one citation needed listed in the article: "One of the games was in the 1970 Interzonal and the other two were in their 1971 match." And these are before I go through the prose matters... but this will be a lengthy and detailed review, but I think taking it piecemeal would result in the best polishing of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will leave the 301s to more "tech savy" contributors. I find the Di Felice books to be reliable. I have consulted their text with a grandmaster chess player, regarding his own results for confirmation of the text's accuracy. I have also run the text by a Ph.D. academic scholar, and former University professor, who confirmed the reliability of the text as well. I have also cross-checked the text with every printed book I could find on the topic, as well as a number of internet databases, and have found the information listed in the Di Felice texts to be reliable on all counts that I could find. I also did extensive research on the McFarland company, and find that they print a number of scholarly, peer-reviewed articles that have been given glowing reviews by various professors from esteemed Universities across the country. From my knowledge and what I have read, the publisher is reliable when it comes to the accuracy and authenticity of the aforementioned text. As regards Horowitz: I have read the text of his work in its entirety and do not find his information to be inaccurate, based on other books on the subject matter. According to "The Oxford Companion to Chess", by David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, -- well known chess historians -- and published by Oxford University Press, "Horowitz... was proprietor and editor of Chess Review, for many years the leading American chess magazine, from 1933... until 1969 when it merged with Chess Life to become Chess Life and Review." Based on this information, I find that Horowitz is sufficiently reliable as an author and researcher. However, if you find information on either Di Felice or Horowitz that brings into question their reliability, by all means let me know so that I can do what is necessary to rectify that potential inaccuracy of such potential claims. The mention of Fischer in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting demonstrates Fischer's popularity in the culture -- hence, the reason that it is listed in the "In popular culture" section of the Fischer wikipedia article. It need not be. That is completely at the discretion of the reviewer. If you find it to be unneeded, then by all means, I will remove it from the page. The citation of the Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode is, as you correctly state: an "improperly sourced claim". It will be removed as soon as I have a moment to do so.

I have removed the "unsourced" claim as it is not specific in its supposed accuracy, as well as being, obviously, without any sort of citation. I will look into the issues regarding the Osama bin Laden letter as well as the "Fischer clock". I will keep you posted. Thank you so much for your thoughts any insight. Your review of this article is greatly appreciated by its contributors. Sirmouse (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have a lot to go through and I am reasonably satisfied that if you had the sources peer reviewed then they are acceptable. My own field with the publisher has been less accurate - they do not fact check so much as offer copyediting and publishing - though the background on the author says more about their competency and ability. I have quite a bit more checking to go through. So please bear with me, I don't think having a longer and more detailed review is a problem - since I think the goal is to get it Featured. Right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That certainly seems reasonable to me. I added two more sources for the "Fischer clock" section. I fixed the link for the Osama bin Laden article. It does come off as very negative, I agree. Unfortunately, the DeLucia book is extremely rare and hard to come by, so I cannot easily cross check that reference. My thoughts are that, if the letter was only in draft form, with no proof that it was even sent, let alone published, then it should not be put into the Fischer article, as it may have only been a passing thought to Fischer and should not reflect his official opinion on the matter -- unless you know of a radio broadcast in which he orally reflects the same opinion of Osama bin Laden? -- I also removed the Law & Order popular culture reference as it seems to only be an allusion to Fischer at best. Sirmouse (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you give it a thorough copyedit? The prose was rather different and tone and construction in places. When was the last time it was checked? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. It has been some time since it was last checked. It may take me a few days to complete, but I will get to work on it right away. I will let you know when I finish the copyedit. Thanks! Sirmouse (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just completed a "thorough copyedit" of the article. Took me five days, but it's done. What next?...Sirmouse (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note that an editor has appeared out of nowhere, attempting to derail this GA-review by stultifying with a tag he refuses to discuss. Asked to follow WP:BRD, he has chosen to revert-war instead. I haven't re-reverted, as I know an edit-war can itself potentially derail a GA-review. Still, I would hate to see the hard work of others negated by the pointless actions of an editor who has contributed absolutely nothing to this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay, I have been very busy as of late. And yes, the article is of great length, perhaps too long as Article Size is indeed an issue. I do believe it should be trimmed, but I don't know how keen you are on this, but it is a valid point. It takes days to review the article as it stands. And the pure text is over 100kb. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. I am condensing the article as we speak... Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thank you. Sirmouse (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed 5,304 bytes from the footnotes, that do not diminish the scholarly breadths of the article. Even though Lord Polonius said that "brevity is the soul of wit", we are not talking about discourse in a play. We are talking about a "comprehensive" article on the subject matter. Sirmouse (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This article needs a split to be fair, I think the only way to really make it acceptable for readers is to split off some of the more detailed sections and summarize them as per WP:SS in a more condensed fashion. As it stands, this article is still of excessive length for most readers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed an additional 5,380 bytes from the main article, that keep its integrity intact. I have checked the readable prose of the Fischer article, using the DYK check tool, and it reads it as 12104 words. By comparison, the "Roman Empire" article (which holds GA standing) has a readable prose of 19858 words. In the last 30 days, the Fischer article has been viewed "76955" times, whereas the "Roman Empire" article has been viewed (in the last 30 days) "225484" times. Based on this data I think it is safe to conclude that it is unnecessary to split the article. It may even detract from viewership, and it certainly won't enhance the comprehensiveness of the article, since longer articles tend to suggest substantive research. Sirmouse (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still disagree that the "Roman Empire" and "Bobby Fischer" are comparable topics. You have the life of a single person against an empire that spanned nearly 15 centuries. The fact that plenty of refs are still 404 and broken is a major issue. Which that alone is an issue from passing GA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns for the article. I, among many other editors over many years, have worked to make the Fischer article what it is today. Having read almost everything there is to know about Fischer, I can say with certainty that the standards you seek for the Fischer article go well beyond what the standards should be for a GA. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the standards you have set forth are at the level of a Featured Article. I believe this is one of the best articles on wikipedia. It has more in-line citations and primary sources than nearly every single non-list article on wikipedia. I find it ludicrous to debate this any further, and, for that reason, I therefore resign my editorship of this page, as well as all of wikipedia. I wish you all the best in finding someone who can make this article meet the impossible standards you have set forth. All best. Sirmouse (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand - I'll just do the rest by hand and pass it. Ugh, I don't want any drama over this, it may be good - but there are certain issues that do need to be checked and I've had a far more annoyance over trivial things that I am not getting on your case about. There's like two dozen or more issues that would need to be resolved before FA. GA, while lower, is something I can whip up fairly quick. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the links were just broken and I don't like being taken to ad or porn sites when I click on links, but a GA review requires that such problems be nipped quickly. I also had this on a previous article I was checking out. Anyways - unless someone gives really good reason not to let this slip by for its length - this should be GA. I'll pass it since I've fixed the last URL issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Notes

Bibliography

• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992) [1984]. The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280049-3.
• Stein, Jess (1973) [1966]. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Random House. ASIN B000X6MOZU.