Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Go (board game)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:56, June 21, 2008.

Go (board game)

 * FAR, has been on main page.

Nominator HermanHiddema (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * "# Shirakawa Masayoshi (2005). A Journey In Search of the Origins of Go. ISBN 1889554987. " – author should be last name, first name and then sort References section alphabetically. There are a few more references that need last name, first name format.
 * Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Many references are missing publishers. Format them per WP:CITE/ES
 * Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Use en dashes for page ranges in references.
 * Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's it for now. As others have stated above, there are many more issues with this article, even after disregarding MOS issues, which there are many.
 * Can you tell me what these are? HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King ( talk ) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Mainly 1c, but also some other issues. In addition to the reliable source problems above, the Strategy section is unreferenced. There are scattered paragraphs without citations in other sections as well. "Go is not easy to play well. With each new level (rank) comes a deeper appreciation for the subtlety and nuances involved and for the insight of stronger players" is POV, among other sentences in Strategy. In Origin in China, three references are inside parentheses; these should be moved out. I also see one in Software players. This article is a long way from FA. Giants2008 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

References inside parenthesis were moved outside. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

References fixed All the Sensei's Library references have been replaced, as have other references questioned here. References now also include publisher, accessdate, etc where appropriate. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope:
 * Book refs 3,4,5,6,7,8, 50, 51, 62, 71, 73, 74 need page numbers.
 * 3, 62, 73 and 74 still need to be done, 71 is done, the rest are essays without page numbers. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Online refs 15, 32, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 94, 95 need access dates.
 * I have added accessdates to all notes that are citations, but not to those that are just footnotes providing extra info (these do not use a citation template anyway). HermanHiddema (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

— Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tried my best to catch all problems with the citations, please check through all of them properly.

Question: Just curious. Does anyone have any concerns about the article beyond formatting? (These are less tedious to address)--ZincBelief (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Layout and prose issues, mainly. But the citations need sorting out before those issues. This really does have a long way to go before its FA standard. — Wackymacs  ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think citations are the most important part of this article, I mean nobody actually challenges any of the material on it. At the end of the day Citations are only one part of featured article criteria, even if they are the easiest part to review. Anyway, could I ask you to detail some of the layout issues, or some of the prose issues, or both. Thank you.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The best thing is not to rush. One thing at a time. As I said, working this up to FA standard will take a long time, and this certainly won't pass FA if you argue over minor issues like missing access dates. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 11:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the work of a minute to change a typo in a reference, or to add in an access date. It takes longer to address prose or presentation. If you have concerns over those it is more helpful or efficient to address those now in my opinion.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Open issues:
 * Current references 3, 62, 73, 74, 90 and 92 need page numbers. By User:Wackymacs above.
 * 3 could possibly be replaced by a reference to Teach Yourself Go I think, or you can also try one of John Fairbairn's articles again.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

-- HermanHiddema (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than that, all references are now properly formatted, I think
 * Article need general copy-editing. By User:Wackymacs above.
 * Contact some copy-editors about this shortly.
 * Reference from sources other than http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/ and http://gobase.org/ have been vetted by User:Ealdgyth. These two sources have been left "on the fence", not necessarily unreliable, for each reviewer to make up his/her own mind on. Info on these sites:
 * MSO World Mindzine articles currently cited have all been written by John Fairbairn, a published author on go.
 * GoBase is a well-respected (within the go community) database of tournaments, players and game results, maintained by Jan van der Steen, a strong player.
 * As others have stated above, there are many more issues with this article, even after disregarding MOS issues, which there are many. By: User:Gary King above.
 * The strategy section and other issues. By User:Giants2008 above.

Oppose on the basis of many issues with accuracy and comprehensiveness - Peripitus (Talk) 03:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, if a 5k plays a game with a 1k, the 5k would need a handicap of four stones to even the odds. - there are no odds in GO and the text reads poorly - 5k is not a noun, a 5k player works better.
 * Every game has odds actually. The odds of who will win and who will lose. 5 kyu is clearly a noun much like grandmaster or novice. I don't agree with this comment personally.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In Go the handicap is given to offset the strength difference between the players and make the game a more equal contest...is a better way. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Top level amateur players sometimes defeat professionals in tournament play. - in even or handicap games ? It's an assertion which I know to be true but would be better with a reference
 * I will look for one with Fernando Aguilar.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Linked to Fan Hui in EGD, it mistakenly describes him as 3p when he is 2p, but apart from that it is fine.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To prevent this, the ko rule is sometimes extended to disallow any previous position. - surely this is disallowing 'replication of any previous position
 * I think replication is obviously implicit there, matter of taste.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the section where it notes that Go Seigen "who scored an impressive 80%" - does this mean he won 80% of all matches he played from 1924 in newspaper-sponsored matches or is this linked to a specific time period ?
 * Will look--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) There is a reference provided for this. It seems clear to me that it is 80% in Newspaper Matches. I can check this if I want to.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From the reference is it not clear - newspapers are not mentioned in the referenced - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will look to see if there is another additional reference available. For me, the newspaper matches are implied when I read it.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The reference says 80% in all matches he played. Matches were generally sponsored by newspapers. This seems ok to me, don't know how others feel.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no mention of the concepts, and importance to strategy and ko fights of sente and gote.
 * Don't understand this comment.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Decisions on keeping sente and playing gote moves so giving sente away are critical to the game - books by James Davies and others on Joseki go into this in detail. Is the comment that you don't understand sente and gote or why they need to be discussed ? - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right I see what you're saying now. I suppose this could be worked in quite concisely. Personally I prefer a merger of Strategy and Tactics, so this may take a while to implement.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Under the scoring section "Each of these scoring methods has advantages and disadvantages" - what are the advantages and disadvantages
 * Yes looks like Weasel Words there.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On second look I note there is a reference for this comment. The brace reader can click on that to investigate further.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is - why does the article not tell you... the reader should not have to click on a link to get information like this - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These are pretty "hardcore" topics, I don't think it is appropriate to go into depth on them here.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

*No citation for the first two paragraphs in the "Nature of the game" section - particularly needed for the assertion that Go is a "zero-sum, perfect information, partisan, deterministic strategy game"
 * None needed for subject specific common knowledge.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * perhaps this is fair enough - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the software players section - "the best Go programs only manage to reach an average amateur level" - what is an average amateur level ? There is also no note of the well discussed point that repeatedly playing the same program makes it easier to defeat due to the predictability of play in some places. SOme of the text in this paragraph does not precisely agree with the linked reference [77]
 * Will trawl through this. 1kyu on KGS is currently the best acheived I think.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Changed average to intermediate, but yes, probably one more reference would be useful here.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing I can find on the stages of the game. Fuseki -> middle game -> end game and the qualitative differences between them. This does not need much but something is required
 * Hmm, I think those have individual pages devoted to them elsewhere. You have to be considerate of what is possible to cover in an introduction to the game.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree that just wikilinking is sufficient - look at the brief but well descriptive section in Chess - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yose theory and middlegame theory are difficult to present to beginners. It is a matter of taste I suppose, but I think they are better discussed elsewhere.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How popular is the game ? how many might play it ? How much do professionals earn from playing ? I seem to remember that tournaments were/are televised in Japan but there is no note of this. The Japanese Go Association sponsors the world amateur championships but there is no note of this.
 * Will look on the IGF pages, but statistics for actual numbers are likely to be wildly imprecise.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 1/222 sourced--ZincBelief (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

- Peripitus (Talk) 03:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.