Talk:Checkmate/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 22:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about chess, but I think I'd enjoy reviewing this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the /GA1 reviewer knows Chess. It also seems to me rather than follow his advice, you have shopped this review for another reviewer.
 * Here is the first bullet point from GA1 that I checked up on: "Several mates are not mentioned, such as the back-rank mate, boden's mate, arabian mate, anastasia mate, smothered mate, also scholar's mate needs a mention, and maybe fool's mate. All of these are fundamental, conceptual checkmates. Give them each a section, description and a little diagram. If any of them already have a full article, link to it with
 * Main article: Back-rank mate (TonyTheTiger (T / Special:Cont many of them and many of them are very rare. There is [[checkmate patterns. I do not think it is worthwhile to cover these in this general-interest article.  There are many other checkmates that don't have names, and the names of many of the ones in checkmate patterns are dubious anyway. (Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)).


 * The back and forth here is concerning to me as are tooforemost international encyclopedia should, I will proceed with the review. Otherwise, I will fail the article for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T / Special:Cont many of them and many of them are very rare. There is [[checkmate patterns. I do not think it is worthwhile to cover these in this general-interest article.  There are many other checkmates that don't have names, and the names of many of the ones in checkmate patterns are dubious anyway. (Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)).
 * The back and forth here is concerning to me as are tooforemost international encyclopedia should, I will proceed with the review. Otherwise, I will fail the article for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T / Special:Cont many of them and many of them are very rare. There is [[checkmate patterns. I do not think it is worthwhile to cover these in this general-interest article.  There are many other checkmates that don't have names, and the names of many of the ones in checkmate patterns are dubious anyway. (Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)).
 * The back and forth here is concerning to me as are tooforemost international encyclopedia should, I will proceed with the review. Otherwise, I will fail the article for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T / Special:Cont many of them and many of them are very rare. There is [[checkmate patterns. I do not think it is worthwhile to cover these in this general-interest article.  There are many other checkmates that don't have names, and the names of many of the ones in checkmate patterns are dubious anyway. (Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)).
 * The back and forth here is concerning to me as :ChessFiends|ChessFiends]] (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC))"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * /GA1 nominator stated "there a novice. I would quickfail the article, but instead I will call for a second opinion on whether the article meets WP:WIAGA 3 a. "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". If people who know chess think this covers the various checkmates as comprehensively as the world's ributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to review the article because I had a lot to do with it. I don't know what Encyclopædia Britannica says about checkmate, but the foremost encyclopedia of chess is The Oxford Companion to Chess, and the entry on checkmate itself doesn't give any of the particular checkmates.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for more detail Bubba, but the /GA1 nominator is not a valid second opinion for /GA2. We need fresh eyes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. In my opinion, Boden's Mate doesn't need to be in the article.  It has its own article and it is also in checkmate patterns.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably the second-best chess encyclopedia is Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, by Harry Golombek. It doesn't have a checkmate entry - it says see Endgame.  Under Endgame is a section on checkmate, and it discusses checkmate with a bishop and knight (§4.4), with a queen (§4.1), with a rook (§4.2), with two bishops (§4.3), and with two knights versus a pawn (§5).  The middle three are covered in detail in this article.  There are sections for first and last ones, but they too long to discuss in detail in this article, so it links to their respective articles.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think we can substantially curtail any entry that already has a main article. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 02:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes every type of checkmate that has its own article should be linked from this article but discussed in less detail than at its dedicated article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All of the 31 checkmates in Checkmate pattern used to have their own stub article. I don't think those should be discussed in the checkmate article.  There are simply to many of them.  There are also several more in the See Also (e.g. ideal mate), that don't merit discussing in the article.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The one with the bishop and knight is considered fundamental, along with the ones with the queen, with the rook, and with two bishops, since they use the minimum material. The two knights versus a pawn is sometimes considered along with the fundamental ones I think, but it is rare and difficult, and checkmate can't always be forced.  But it is interesting, and when people see the other fundamental checkmates, they often ask about two knights.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your enthusiasm for the subject is admirable. However, I am going to go by the opinion of people other than the /GA1 and /GA2 nominators for my 2nd opinion. I thank you for helping me to understand the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that putting all of those obscure, unimportant, and very rare checkmates will dilute the article so it doesn't focus on what checkmate really is and the important checkmates. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. I see Bubba73's point. However, I do find it intriguing that different kinds of checkmates are included in this page. I believe Wikipedia should be all inclusive in it's topics, without it becoming a book on the subject. I really do believe that Wikipedia will be the starting point for all future academic research of any kind anywhere in the world. As the holder of such a mantel the information should be factual, with multiple perspectives, backed by reliable authors and primary sources, with in-line citations and quotations, etc.

I enjoy the animated fool's mate. I actually do very much believe that it is important, if not essential, to include all the different kinds of essential (and obscure) checkmates, as it provides a broad spectrum of the subject matter and raises Wikipedia as a source of reliable and factual information. I have been playing and teaching competitive, cooperative, and collaborative chess for over 10 years, and I have to admit that I never knew about Boden's mate, or Stamma's mate until I read this article. I believe this is what Wikipedia should be about: learning and wanting to learn more through the discovery of new information.

I like the article. Could it use improvement? Which article could not?

In the instant case the article, which is basically a rule in the game of chess, is backed by 21 primary sources, which is pretty impressive if you consider that we're just talking about the checkmate rule alone.

It even gives you a short history of the rule. If it wanted to be A-Class, then perhaps it would need more more information on the history of the rule, and maybe even it's influence on other fields and popular culture. I like the Silman quote. Maybe some more quotes from famous chess players would be nice, but that is, in my opinion, for an A-Class level chess article, not for a good article nomination review.

In my opinion, it should be promoted to "Good Article" standing. Sirmouse Sirmouse 07:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow! That was quite contradictory. As I was reading your comment, I was almost sure you were going to agree with the /GA1 reviewer that the various obscure mates should be added to this article and that it should endeavor to be as comprehensive as possible. Then you said go ahead and promote it as it stands.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Obscure mates being added should have no bearing on a GA level review, in my opinion. That would be for an A level review, I believe.

Sirmouse Sirmouse 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from TonyTheTiger
 * Many paragraphs have no citations--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I DID notice that the citations were in a different format than usual. I don't know about whether it would be better in the standard format.... Any thoughts on this? Sirmouse Sirmouse 21:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the non-traditional format. I am more concerned about claims that are not backed up. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the standard Parenthetical referencing, or author/date system, or Hardvard referencing. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I take it you mean "The checkmate with the queen is the most important" paragraph. The "other checkmates" section links to other articles with citations (albeit those other linked pages could use primary sources). Although, it does seem to have quite a bit of in-line citation overall, just in an atypical format.... Sirmouse Sirmouse 21:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * King and queen
 * I am a novice chess player. To me things would be more clear in the King and queen section if the black dots were white.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but black dots stand out better. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * King and rook
 * Why doesn't this section show alternate rook positions like the above section?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * After seeing the alternate positions of the queen in the previous section, the other rook positions should be obvious. And the dots clutter up the diagram.  And the source only gives those alternate squares for the K+Q vs. K checkmate.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * King and two bishops
 * Can you explain why the "A second checkmate with two bishops" could not occur closer to the center.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A checkmate with two bishops versus a king cannot occur with the lone king not on an edge - the other king and bishops simply can't cover all of the squares. Checkmate can only be forced with the king on the edge and in the corner or next to it.  There are checkmate positions on the edge away from those squares, but checkmate cannot be forced there.  (In the checkmate on the square next to the corner, the defending king has just come out of the corner.) Just as with the two knights, the king simply has to avoid going to a square where he can be checkmated on the next move.  I checked several books, but none of them discuss this.  Finding a reference for it is unlikely.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * King, bishop and knight
 * In the position from Seirawan?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Header and caption changed.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No stalemates to avoid?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The alternate positions in the text should be shown in the same manner as above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not depict the stalemates mentioned?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no stalemates given in the main references that I know of. It is mentioned in the main article, so I don't see a need for having it here.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Two and three knights
 * "In the second diagram, if Black plays 1... Ka8?" seems to be talking about the wrong side of the board or wrong diagram.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there are extensive errors in describing the moves.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The first and second diagrams were switched. Fixed.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Again we need to be consistent with alternate positions and stalemates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Other checkmates
 * Suddenly the dots mean moves rather than alternative locations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * changed dot to x. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Above I mentioned that many paragraphs need citations. In this case there are no citations for this section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Citations added. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * See also
 * Remove all the links that are in main templates above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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

This article although now broad enough needs a lot of work.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The inconsistent treatement of stalemates and alternate checkmate positions is troubling. It could take a lot of work to consistently address these issues. The easy way would be to remove the features in the early text, but I think the better solution is to expand the later text, which will take some time. Also the same symbol is used to depict an alternate position as is used to depict moves. This needs to be addressed.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I don't mind the unusual format of the WP:ICs. However entire sections or even entire paragraphs without any citation are not acceptable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * My concerns on breadth have been alleviated.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * Punctuation is inconsistent. Make sure full sentences end with periods and phrases do not.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * N
 * Pass/Fail:
 * N


 * In the end, I think this article needs a lot more work to pass. I am FAILing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * #1. Stalemates to avoid - I can't find comprehensive coverage of these in a reference. The reference that has them for K+Q and K+R (Fine and Benko) doesn't have them for other checkmates.  These stalemates are sort of beside the point, since they don't occur unless the stronger side makes a mistake.  If they must be balanced in the other basic mates, then I think the two that are in there will have to be removed (since I can't come up with them for the other checkmates).


 * Alternate positions of the checking piece - the source (Pandolfini) only gives this for K+Q vs. K.


 * #2. I've added some references where I think they are needed.  There are a couple of paragraphs that don't say much that don't have references, but they are introducing material that is in the following subsections.


 * #6. I think the punctuation in the captions is right now. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I was asked to take a second look at this. Your other alternative is a WP:GAR of the version of the article that I failed. I suggest you renominate this. I have completed my review. I don't think it was a mistake. I will not have a comfort level with the article either with inconsistent stalemate presentation or stalemate removal. Paragraphs continue to be uncited. In a well structured article each paragraph presents a new topic and each should have at least one inline citation. I will not be passing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)