Talk:World Chess Championship 1972/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 01:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is detailed and thorough on the chess itself, and very well-written. I haven't been able to check any of the sources, but I don't see anything likely to be controversial, and the sources cited are all reliable.

I have two concerns about GA status. First, I think it should be possible to add some images. See this category on Commons, for example; and there are more images there that aren't in that category. Pictures of the arena and of Spassky would also be good.

Second, I wonder if the material on the bizarre events and the level of media interest could be expanded. The sentence starting "The off-the-board antics continued..." compresses into a few lines material that has filled entire magazine articles and book chapters. I don't have the 1972 book, but I recalled enough details to start Googling, and found this book by Jan Stradling, which has a chapter on the match. Stradling gives some of the strange details, such as the chairs being X-rayed, and the air being analyzed. This is rather underplayed in the article, and I think it does deserve some expansion. I wouldn't fail the article for GA just on this point, since the article does cover this material to some degree, but I think there's an opportunity there. If you were to take this to FA I think it would need some expansion in that area.

A very enjoyable article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've placed the review on hold until the images issue is dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The actual editor ended up leaving Wikipedia... in part due to the "impossible demands" of myself over a Bobby Fischer article which needed substantial cleaning, that was done. Now, this article is indeed important and I'd like to stand in and see this become a GA. If Sirmouse returns, I want him to see his work tended and passed. I think the article is serious, but it is not a play by play of the actual events and some of the dramatics - it is a concise summary of all the games and the background. I ask you, how is analyzing the air really relevant here? And same with x-raying the chairs. I've seen some pretty weird stuff in sports and other venues for anti-cheating, but its not entirely unusual in its own right. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said above, I wouldn't fail the article for that -- personally I think there's room for expansion there, but the article does cover the controversies and gives some details. It meets the "broad" criterion.  The only thing I think is really needed is a couple of images, which shouldn't be too hard to find. Sorry to hear Sirmouse has left the project; this is a very good article, and if he was involved in bringing it to this level he should be proud of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, images are not part of the GA criteria, but of those images - none are from the Championship and only one is listed as being from 1972. I suppose it could be added if you are really concerned about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've done a GA review, so please excuse me if I'm a bit out of date with current practice. It looks to me as if the GA criteria do include images, but don't require them.  Do you feel it would hurt the article to add one of those images?  I'm OK with passing the article without, if you feel strongly that the available images are inappropriate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant images themselves are not of the requirement for GAs, but the 1972 image works. I'll add it to the top. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've passed the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)