Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Judit Polgár

Review of Judit Polgár
This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from WikiProject Chess/Review/Judit Polgár. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

{| class="collapsible collapsed" width=100% style="text-align:left; background:transparent" border="1" ! style="font-weight:normal; border: 1px #aaa;" |

Nomination by MrsHudson
I would like to nominate Judit Polgár and Ashot Nadanian articles for A-class. I believe they are good enough. What do you think? --MrsHudson (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="collapsible collapsed" width=100% style="text-align:left; background:transparent" border="1" ! style="font-weight:normal; border: 1px #aaa;" |

General

 * The article seems to lack a section "Influence on chess". See for example the section Alexander Alekhine, that describes what openings he invented or rehabilitated. It would be interesting also to know if she has acted as a model for later woman players. SyG (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has too few illustrations, which makes an arid read. More pictures, or a few diagrams here and there, would help. SyG (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done I checked that there are no links with a need for disambiguation. SyG (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the external links are all fine, except this one: To Men, Losing to Judit Polgar Is No Disgrace : Tigress of the Chessboard Purrs Quietly and Pounces. It does not work on my computer. The link should be repaired, e.g. through the wayback machine. SyG (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked that the article has suitable prose size (38 kB). SyG (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find the structure of the article messy. There is a section called "Carreer" but it includes things about her family. The section "Background" is too vague. The touch-move controversy could be placed elsewhere, e.g. in a special section "Controversies" that would group this one and the one on Fischer and jews. I think we should discuss and find a solid structure before changing. SyG (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Illustrative Games

 * It is good that the games are linked to ChessGames, but then I do not see the point of giving the full notation of the games, as the reader just has to click on the link to find them. I would suggest removing all the moves, just leaving the link to ChessGames with the description. SyG (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the games should have a reference to a book, so that their notability (or "illustrativeness") is justified. SyG (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="collapsible collapsed" width=100% style="text-align:left; background:transparent" border="1" ! style="font-weight:normal; border: 1px #aaa;" |

Comment by SunCreator

 * Possible. For Judit Polgár the Illustrative games section is unreferenced. For Ashot Nadanian the notable games is poorly referenced and there is no reason to believe they are 'notable' as such. Also why is the Washington Post excerpt not a WP:COPYVIO. Regards,SunCreator (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Polgar's notable games are placed in the relevant section of her chessgames.com page. So they are probably notable. As for Nadanian, only the Bologan game is in the "Notable games" section of chessgames.com. But the Wu Shaobin game is well-known and has been published in several places, in particular in the "Genius in the Background" book by Karolyi. The game with Gurgenidze was published with Nadanian's annotations in chessville.com and he considers it as "one of my most memorable". Not sure about copivio (Washington Post). Looks OK to me, as it's just a small excerpt and author's name is mentioned. --MrsHudson (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the problem with notable games in both articles. --MrsHudson (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Polgar's notable games are placed in the relevant section of her chessgames.com page. So they are probably notable. As for Nadanian, only the Bologan game is in the "Notable games" section of chessgames.com. But the Wu Shaobin game is well-known and has been published in several places, in particular in the "Genius in the Background" book by Karolyi. The game with Gurgenidze was published with Nadanian's annotations in chessville.com and he considers it as "one of my most memorable". Not sure about copivio (Washington Post). Looks OK to me, as it's just a small excerpt and author's name is mentioned. --MrsHudson (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the problem with notable games in both articles. --MrsHudson (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="collapsible collapsed" width=100% style="text-align:left; background:transparent" border="1" ! style="font-weight:normal; border: 1px #aaa;" |

Comment by Bubba73

 * Due to a dispute between editors over "strongest female chess player in history" in the first line, there are 12 references for it. I think that is excessive. Put two there and the rest in external links. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have put the references in the appropriate section, instead of the Lead. SyG (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to a dispute between editors over "strongest female chess player in history" in the first line, there are 12 references for it. I think that is excessive. Put two there and the rest in external links. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have put the references in the appropriate section, instead of the Lead. SyG (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="collapsible collapsed" width=100% style="text-align:left; background:transparent" border="1" ! style="font-weight:normal; border: 1px #aaa;" |

Conclusion by SyG: A-class not reached
The review has been open since 20th October, and has failed to gain three endorsements. Moreover, it seems noone is trying to fix the comments and concerns from the reviewers anymore. So I shall close the review and the article has failed to reach A-class. SyG (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * }