Talk:Rules of chess/GA1

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

Overall, I found this article very informative, and it was easier to understand than I would have guessed. The references seem good, and I believe the article is close to passing. The biggest problem I found was that so much of the information is in list form. Since this is an encyclopedia, prose is preferred. There are 13 lists (plus one sublist) in the prose of the article. Quite a few of them could be easily converted to prose, and I believe this would improve the readability of the article.

I will place the nomination on hold to allow for this concern to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bubba73, if you make a copy of this as a subpage of your user page, e.g. User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules of chess I'll give you hand with the lists, and any consequent re-shuffling of images to keep them aligned with the relevant text. I've found sandbox versions very handy for trying out such changes, and my last GA reviewer said she hadn't realised how useful they could be (see for example Talk:Small_shelly_fauna).
 * Most of the lists can be replaced with text, tables or other layouts. However some look justified in terms of Embedded list, see the New York buildings example at Embedded_list. -- Philcha (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this particular page or the Rules of chess as my subpage? Bubba73 (talk), 14:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Article Rules of chess -- Philcha (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, and I eliminated the first list which is the easiest to take out. The rest will be much harder to deal with, since the lists seem the natural way to present it, and that is the way rulebooks do it too.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bubba73, I've taken the huge liberty of reformatting section User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess in a way that I think: avoids a large chunk of whitespace; places the pieces' names, quantities and symbols in one handy package next to the initial diagram. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. If you do like it, I'll see what I can do with other lists. -- Philcha (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks fine to me. Bubba73 (talk), 17:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One little thing, in text those small numbers should be spelled out (I'm a big stickler on that). But in a table like this, it might be better to use digits for the number of pieces.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bubba73:
 * I've changed text to numbers in User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess.
 * I've changed lists to prose in User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess and User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess.
 * I've increased the number of levels of bullet in User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess as it's a complex set of nested "if"s.
 * Please check that I haven't unintentionally changed the meaning in any of these. -- Philcha (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GaryColemanFan, I've had a good look at the other bullet lists and think converting these to prose would make the relevant sections harder to read. Wikiproject Chess set out to improve this article after discovering that it's the chess article with the largest hit rate, in other words it's mainly used by beginners who need all the help they can get. As List notes, "Many Wikipedians feel this style is the easiest to read."
 * User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess is what a computer programmer would recognise as a 3-level nested "if" structure. Even programmers expect these to be indented to show the logical structure, and non-programmer readers will absolutely need this assistance. The examples at Embedded_list are less complex than this. The complexity is in the rules themselves (I was shocked at how complex they've become, as I haven't played competitive chess for many years), not in the way this article is written.
 * User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess is simpler - until the reader gets to Pawns.
 * In User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess, all the pre-conditions must be met, and it's clearer if each is identified visually.
 * In User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess it's essential to make it clear exactly how many ways there are to escape check, and the cases in which interposition does not work.
 * Likewise in User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess it's essential to make it clear exactly how many situations can lead to a draw. -- Philcha (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it has the right number of lists now, i.e. that the ones it has now are best that way. Bubba73 (talk), 22:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The changes in the sandboxes look good. I would love to see them added to the article, as I think they will present the information in a more encyclopedic way. I do agree, however, that some of the lists should remain as lists. It is definitely the best way to present some of the information. Once they are added, I will look through the article some more to get a sense of how the balance between prose and lists is working. Thanks for the quick response to the review. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've transferred the changes to the artcile, and also made a couple of images in "Codification" display properly. -- Philcha (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A bot came through and took those two images out of the sandbox version. Bubba73 (talk), 14:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see now why they had : at the start. I'll reinstate with : now in case we do more updates there. -- Philcha (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Detailed review
 * 1) Throughout the article, "he" and "his" are used. Since chess can be played by females, a gender-neutral term should be used (keeping in mind that "they" is a plural pronoun).
 * This has been started, but there are still several instances of "he" or "him" used without an accompanying feminine pronoun.
 * 1) "rules also govern...rules for handicapped players" - prhaps "accommodations for handicapped players"?
 * 2) Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm confused about number four in the "Castling" list. If the king and rook have not yet moved, is it not redundant to say that they must be on the same rank? I'm assuming that this is included in the rules, however, so it should be left in.
 * 3) "could theoretically capture a piece in the kings space (that is, capture the king, itself)" - this sounds like an overly complicated way of saying "could theoretically capture the king" - is it necessary to give such a wordy description?
 * 4) There is inconsistency throughout the article regarding the pronoun used for a king. Either "he" or "it" should be used, but not both.
 * 5) In the "Check" section, a brief explanation of "pin" would be helpful (eg. ", or unable to move without exposing a more valuable piece").
 * 6) "indicating it on his scoresheet by writing "resigns", circling the result of the game, or writing "1–0" if Black resigns or "0–1" if White resigns" - is this a three-step process, or are these three ways to indicate resignation? The way it is written now, it appears to be three different ways.
 * 7) I'm confused as to why one player with a knight and king and the other player with a king couldn't lead to a checkmate. If the white king was in h1 and the black king was in h3, the black knight could move to f3 or e2 to cause a checkmate.
 * 8) The wikilink to "over the board" at the beginning of the "Competition rules" section doesn't seem particularly helpful, as it just links to a list of chess-related topics.
 * 9) "If a player is actually delivering a checkmate on the board" - this seems like complicated phrasing. Can it be simplified so that it is easier to understand?
 * 10) I find the list at the end of the "Timing" section quite confusing. I'm not sure if it would work better as prose, but simplifying it would really help the article.
 * 11) From the equipment section, is black not also a common color on chessboards?
 * 12) "The height of the king should be 85–105 millimetres" "The US Chess Federation allows the height of the king to be 86–114 mm" - is this an inconsistency, or are these from different governing bodies? If so, this should be clarified the first time (eg. "FIDE states that the height of the king should be 85-105 millimetres"). These also seem like they should go together (eg. "FIDE states that the height of the king should be 85-105 millimetres, while the US Chess Federation allows the height of the king to be 86–114 mm").
 * 13) "During this period, the pawn acquired the right to be promoted" - during which period?
 * 14) If the queen could only move one space in the 16th century, how could a queen have acquired its current move in the 15th century?
 * 15) In the third paragraph of the "History" section, the queen acquiring its current move is repeated.
 * This is still a concern, as it is stated at the end of the second paragraph and at the beginning of the third paragraph.
 * 1) I have a hard time following the "History" section. Could it be reorganized so that the oldest rules come first and then show the progression of changes up to the present? Starting in the 16th century, then jumping back to the 15th, then back to 1200 is confusing. Please note that I'm just asking for paragraphs to be cut and pasted, not for a rewriting of the section.
 * 2) "The fifty move rule under which a draw can be claimed if there has been no pawn move and no capture in the last fifty moves." - what about it?
 * 3) There are a few places in the article in which pictures could be left-aligned. Staggering them a bit would better comply with the MOS guidelines on image placement.

I found this article easy to follow and enjoyable to read. I will keep the nomination on hold for seven days to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If more time is needed, an extension will be granted at that time if the article is being actively edited. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Recap:
 * Number 1 - partially done
 * Number 2 - ✅.
 * Number 3 about castling, yes the rule is that way and the footnote explains why. Several people have wondered about that, so it is explained in the footnote.
 * Number 4 - ✅, I changed it. I think it is OK now, have a look.
 * Number 5 - ✅ I changed the king from "he" to "it".
 * Number 6 - ✅
 * Number 7 ✅
 * Number 8 - he is not in check so that is stalemate, not checkmate.
 * Number 9 ✅, was linking to the wrong article. Fixed now.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Number 10 - I rephrased it, see if it is OK now. The point is that what happens on the board takes precedent over what happens on the clock, if the clock is noticed after the checkmate occurs.  For instance, if one player checkmates the other and then it is noticed that his time had expired (even quite some time ago and even if the time must have expired well before the checkmate move was made), the game ends in checkmate, not a time forfeit.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Number 11 - I've rewritten this; see if it is OK now. I rephrased and I eliminated the two lowest-level bullets and made that into text.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Number 12 - no black is not a common color on chessboards. The pieces are often black so you need a contrast because black pieces on black squares are hard to see.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Number 13 ✅. The intention is to have the standard rules in the article and the USCF differences in footnotes.  That one slipped through, fixed now.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Number 14 - the best I can find is "Middle Ages", and I've made that change. Bubba73 (talk), 17:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Numbers 15, 16, 17 - I've worked on this to improve it. The main problem is that the second paragraph was about the history of pawn promotion. I moved most of this paragraph down to put it in better order.  It isn't possible to put everything in strict chronological order because there were no universal rules until around 1900.  A rule would start in one area and another rule would start somewhere else.  It often took more than 100 years for a new rule to spread.  See if it is OK now.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Number 18 - {{done} Incomplete sentence fixed. Bubba73 (talk), 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Number 16 - the paragraphs have this structure:

Paragraph 3 does mention that the queen got its current move in the 15th century and that is already stated in the paragraph about 1200-1600. However, this is a recap to lead into the discussion of how that influenced changes in the pawn promotion rule. The only way I see to change it would be to take out the "in the 15th century" and replace it with "When the queen got its current move..." or "When the queen got its current move in the 15th century...". Do you have a preference? Bubba73 (talk), 05:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) middle ages
 * 2) 1200-1600
 * 3) pawn promotion, which had several changes
 * 4) two new rules about draws
 * 5) six new minor rules
 * 6) time control


 * Well, I see a different way - mention the 15th century for the queen in the second paragraph and just say "when" in the third paragraph. I'll make that change.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. According to the article history, you have not edited this article today. Are you making these changes in the sandbox version? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, sandbox: User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules of chess. Would it be better to be making the changes to the main article?  Now in the main article.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets make changes on the main article only now. The two are out of sync. Bubba73 (talk), 17:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #8, you're absolutely right. Thanks for the explanation. For some reason, I looked at the scenario a few times and it didn't cross my mind that king wouldn't be in check. Obviously, every once in a while, I need someone to tell me, "You're wrong and your comments make you look stupid." Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re "There are a few places in the article in which pictures could be left-aligned. Staggering them a bit would better comply with the MOS guidelines on image placement", Mos says images may be left aligned but does not explicitly recommend alternating them. In fact staggering the pics makes the text harder to read because the start-positions of lines become variable, so the reader has to search for the start rather than automically skip to the same X-coordinate - that's also why centre-aligned paras are condemned in articles on usability. -- Philcha (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like left-aligned images because that makes the text go to the right and then when the image ends the start of the text jumps to the left. Bubba73 (talk), 16:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I went through the article again, and it's very close. I crossed off the completed items on my list, and only two remain. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've gone through and made them all "he or she" and "his or her", although I think that is awkward. Bubba73 (talk), 17:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Often, the best choice is making it plural: A player may move his rook in a straight line -> Players move their rooks in a straight line. This might help in some places that you find awkward.


 * With that said, I believe that the article now meets the GA criteria, so I am promoting it. Thanks for all of your hard work and quick responses to the review. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions, which helped get it to where it is. Bubba73 (talk), 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The plural method can be awkward too. I just changed a sentence to "players lose if they exceed the time limit".  The problem is that only one of the players in a game can lose on time.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "A player who exceeds the time limit loses the game"? Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)