Talk:Chess tournament/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Hi, I'll be reviewing this article; I'm happy to see another chess article up for GAR. At first glance, this article is going to need quite a bit of work. I'll prepare a detailed list of initial comments in the next week; in the meantime, could the editor(s) ensure there is at least one citation for every paragraph, as it will be necessary for GA promotion. More later. Sasata (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, as mentioned, the article needs work. In the past I'd probably just GA fail, but I'll give the editors the benefit of the doubt and drop an initial set of comments to work on. I noticed several typos and MOS problems during reading, but am reluctant to spend much time yet on nit-pick details, knowing that content could (and should) be altered significantly.

Lead History
 * looks thin, but we'll come back to this after figuring out the rest
 * it would be really nice to have some more historical information about the early tournaments. Who played? How many played? What format was used in Leeds 1841? How long did the tournaments last? etc.
 * what are the drawbacks of the elimination formation alluded to in the text?
 * The images are too many and too large. On my browser the second olympiad map overlaps with the second Olympiad picture unless I stretch out the window. Does the pic of Anderssen really helps the reader comprehend the section? Don't forget about WP:access and remember that people on small notebooks and Palms will be reading this article.
 * "By the 29th Chess Olympiad in 1990, there were 127 member countries." why not use the 2008 numbers?
 * "On September 26, 2008, Swedish Chess Computer Association ranked Deep Rybka 3 as the best chess engine in the world with an Elo rating of 3238.[17]" What does this have to do with the subject "Chess tournament"?

Rules Missing stuff:
 * This section overall seems disjointed and lacks flow. The opening paragraph is weak and doesn't properly introduce following material. Many of the subsections seem to have unnecessary detail and minutiae that I'm not sure needs to be in what should be a general overview article about chess tournaments. The overall impression reading it is that its a highly watered-down and incomplete version of FIDE rules. No mention of touch-move?
 * The arbiter's role could be greatly expanded, and the list of penalties eliminated
 * the "Handicap inclusivity" subsection title is awkward, and seems misplaced in the section about tournament format
 * Dump the gallery... after the reader's seen one picture of a bunch of people playing chess together in a room, I don't think they need to see more
 * what is the longest running chess tournament? (Hastings?) Strongest tournament? Largest tournament?
 * no discussion of the relatively recent phenomenon of computer-assisted chess cheating and precautions organizers have to take to reduce this... a mention of the glass bubble in that Spanish tournament with Topalov and Carlsen would be appropriate here (and maybe a pic if you can find one)
 * what world championships have been decided with tournaments (rather than matches)
 * no mention of postal chess tournaments.. how do they differ in format?
 * would it be worth mentioning women-only tournaments?
 * The citations need some work. It would be best if all were in proper citation templates, barring that, ensure that all have (where possible) author/date/publisher, and access dates if weblinks
 * just noticed Philcha's comments at the WP:Chess talk page, and agree with them

I'll let the editors chew on this for a while and come back for a second read later. Sasata (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for such a thorough review. I (and hopefully some others) will get to work on it right away.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 18:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem... but actually the review isn't that thorough yet; I give you the detailed nit-pick review when the above comments are addressed :) Sasata (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see there hasn't been much improvement in the past week. I'm going to fail this GA to give editors more time to deal with the suggestions above (and avoid having to wait indefinitely at GAN). Looking forward to seeing the improved version back at GAN sometime! Sasata (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for taking your time with this review. You've brought up some great points on improving the article, it will just take some time to make the changes.  Take care,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or does this article not mention at all how many games are played and / or the number of points needed to win a chess championship? I came here to figure out how many games need to be played (or points scored?) for the current tournament before carlsen/anad would be the winner, but i can't find this information, not even on the world chess championship page.  I dont even know the basic rules of how to win a tournament :(

Audience conduct
Isn't the audience at a chess tournament supposed to be absolutely silenced during a tournament? Angie Y. (talk)