This article, primarily written by me, is, I think, very well-researched and referenced, covers the topic thoroughly, and as best I can tell, satisfies all the criteria for A-class. Quale wrote on the article's talk page, "I think it's very good, and your sections and section titles are much better than the ones I was thinking about. I'm bumping the rating to B. I would say it's an A-class article, but many WP:CHESS members think that the project A-rating requires a (semi-)formal review." Krakatoa (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly a very fine article, well researched and documented. I have only two minor style issues, and they are not that big and could go either way.
Capitalization of "black" and "white". Usually these are when they are substitutes for a player's name, otherwise not, e.g. "then Black played..." when referring to a person, but "... the black queen... ". So maybe these should not be caps in the article. But I'm not sure.
Percent. The "%" character is used several times, and the style is that "%" is used in scientific work and in tables, info boxes etc, and that "percent" is used otherwise in text. This is no big deal.
I've tried to address the % issue now, substituting "percent" where reasonably possible. But I think doing so in a sentence like this would result in a nightmare: "Streeter found that overall White scored +38% =31% -31% (total 53.5%); in 1851-78, White scored +46% =14% -40% (total 53%); in 1881-1914, White scored +37% =32% -31% (total 53%); in 1914-32, White scored +37% =37% -26% (total 55.5%)." Compare "Streeter found that overall White scored +38 percent =31 percent -31 percent (total 53.5 percent); in 1851-78, White scored +46 percent =14 percent -40 percent (total 53 percent); in 1881-1914, White scored +37 percent =32 percent -31 percent (total 53 percent); in 1914-32, White scored +37 percent =37 percent -26 percent (total 55.5 percent)." Unbelievably long, cumbersome, and ugly; the reader will be asleep by the time he/she staggers to the end of that sentence. I think that in effect, a sentence like this one is a "table," so use of the % symbol rather than the word is appropriate.
As for capitalization of "white" and "black," I think the article does so appropriately. I don't believe that a phrase like "the black queen" ever occurs in it. Invariably, the article uses the two words to refer to the player(s) conducting the white or black pieces. I think that in that context "White" and "Black" are correct and almost universally used. See, e.g., The Oxford Companion to Chess (1st ed. 1984), p. 297 (article on "SCHLIEMANN DEFENCE") ("By playing 3...f5 Black weakens the diagonal a2-g8, but Jaenisch felt that his move might be practicable because White has not placed his light bishop on this diagonal."); Suba, Dynamic Chess Strategy, p. 134 ("Even the symmetrical variations of some openings present White with a critical moment at an early stage and he cannot progress without making concessions to Black."); Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch, p. 231 (among many other examples on this page and those following, "White maintained a 56%/44% winning percentage for most of the century . . . . But it is also true that some of the world's top players have scored brilliantly with Black."). Krakatoa (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what you asked: "This is a style issue - when should "white" and "black" be capitalized when talking about chess? My understanding is that they should only be capitalized when substituting for a proper name, such as "... White played the queen...", and not otherwise, such as "the black pieces". Is that correct?" I don't believe the article ever uses a phrase like "black pieces"/"Black pieces" so your example doesn't seem apropros. The article uses "White" and "Black" to refer to the collective results of persons playing the white pieces and persons playing the black pieces, respectively. As I said above, that as far as I can tell is the approach universally taken by chess writers (I cited the Oxford Companion to Chess, Suba, and Watson, and can add more if you like). What sentences in the article do you consider defective in this respect? To give a hypothetical, do you think that in a sentence like, "Statistics show that White scores 55 percent and Black 45 percent." "White" and "Black" should be lower-case, e.g. "Statistics show that white scores 55 percent and black 45 percent?" As I say, I think few if any chess writers outside of Wikipedia would write the latter. Krakatoa (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are respected books that use Black and White that way, but there are plenty that don't. My understanding is that it should be like a proper name - caps when substituting for a proper name. In the case of this article, it is talking about an abstract player of the white or black pieces, not a particular player. I'm no expert, and could go either way, but I think not caps unless they are substitutes for proper names of a particular person is in keeping with our style. Bubba73(talk), 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if "White" and "Black" are used as if a proper name would be used, even though there is no specific person, I think that is OK. So it would be "... the black queen... " versus "... Black's queen...", since in the second case, it is taking the place of a proper name. So I'm OK with that. Bubba73(talk), 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Approve Given that the comments in my review hereabover have found solutions, I approve that this article should be given A-class, on the basis of this version.
Of course there is still room for improvement so I am not sure the article would do it to FA-class. For example the interesting comments made by Voorlandt on the Talk page of the article about the relativity of the advantage depending on the level of players. But as long as there is no source it is difficult to work further on that.
SyG (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hereunder are my comments and proposals for improvements, based on the review of this version of the article.
in the Lead
The link between the first sentence and the second one may not be clear for an outsider, because in the first sentence we talk about "advantage" and in the second one we talk about "more chances to win", without doing an explicit link between these two notions. After all, an "advantage" could also be "less chances to lose" ? Done
The expression "scoring between 53 and 56 percent overall" in the second sentence is unclear for an outsider, even if it is explained in later sections. It may be understood that White wins 53% of the games, which is not what is meant. Done
The word "theorists" may not be clear for an outsider. What is a theorist, especially regarding chess ? Done
As mentioned below, in response to SunCreator, I intend to write an article on chess theory (i.e. opening, middlegame, endgame theory) and link to that.
The expression "best play by both sides" may be worth a link to something (an article on Game theory ?) because for a non-game expert it may not be clear. Done
There is an obvious typo in the sentence "a game of chess should conclude in a draw with best draw". I will correct that. Done
The first sentence implies that White actually has an advantage, which is not proven by anyone. At first I thought that this was a problem and maybe the sentence should be phrased like "the probable advantage", but now I think it is not so bad because the third sentence clearly states that there is consensus on that. Done
I've added a table. I'm not sure if how it looks is appropriate. With/without border, what should be listed, to go at the beginning/middle or end of paragraph. All questions I don't have a clear answer to. SunCreator (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The use of signs +, = and - is not explained, nor is the way to reach a total percentage. Done
The phrasing "More recently (in 2005)" is a bit redundant and heavy, the first two words would be sufficient. Done
I do not understand the structure of the second paragraph. It looks like just a list of evidences, which is good but could read better with one or two sentences to add fluidity or insight. Done
I added an explanatory sentence at the beginning of the paragraph.
in the section "Drawn with best play"
I find the formulation "The classical view is that White's objective is to extend" a bit heavy because of the repetition of "is". Why not something like "In the classical view, White's objective is to extend" ? But as I am not a native English-speaker, please tell me if I am wrong. Done
In the second sentence of the second paragraph, I do not understand why the first letter of the quote is in upper case. Is it compliant with WP:MOS ? Done
I think so. Look at these examples given (not addressing this exact point, admittedly) under Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation_marks:
Correct: Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable."
According to WP:ELLIPSES, I think the three dots in the quote of Watson should be in brackets, like [...] Done
I don't see why. The guideline you cite says "An ellipsis does not normally need square brackets around it, since its function is usually obvious—especially if the guidelines above are followed. But square brackets may optionally be used for precision, to make it clear that the ellipsis is not itself quoted; this is usually only necessary if the quoted passage also uses three period in it to indicate a pause or suspension." The quoted passage doesn't use three periods in it, so square brackets are not necessary. Krakatoa (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:HEAD, the names of sections shall not include "special characters", although I am not sure the character " should be considered as special. Done
I find it problematic to name the section with the title of a book, while this section talks about other things than the book. Done
I have removed the quotation marks, so the title now is not just an allusion to the book. I think the title is a good one to tersely capure the concept -- especially since I reference Berliner saying that he is a disciple of Adams. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The player Horowitz shall be refered to by his full name (i.e. including surname), in order to be consistent with all the others and to avoid any REDIRECT link. Done
Hans Berliner should be presented as "a former World [...]" and not "the former World [...]". Done
Jeremy Silman should be presented as "International Master" and not "IM", in order to be consistent with all the others. Done
I think I've addressed this. The first International Master I cited, I used "International Master," for the next one I used IM and then just an unwikified "IM" thereafter.
Randy Bauer and Taylor Kingston are quoted but their credibility is not explained. Why are they authoritative ? It seems Randy Bauer is not even an IM ? Done
I removed the text references to Bauer and Kingston (though they're still mentioned as references). They're respected reviewers, I think, but I don't know what (if anything) their titles are. I don't think either is an IM. As I say, I would dearly love to get hold of the Watson review, in which case I would probably just quote him and forget about Bauer and Kingston altogether. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an undue space before the 26th reference. I will correct that. Done
in the section "Modern perspectives"
There are undue spaces in "1. e4" and "1. d4" in the quotation of Kaufman. Done
Originally, I quoted him as he wrote it (same thing with others who wrote "1 e4" and such). For the sake of consistency, I've changed this sort of thing to "1.e4" and "1.d4" with a parenthetical note added to the reference "(notation form changed)." Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
others
Are there no players/experts who have argued that Black may have an advantage ? Done
Rowson has a chapter on Black's advantages. I am inclined to add subsections to the article on "The nature of White's advantage(s)" and "The nature of Black's advantage(s)."
Shall we speak about players who have better statistics with black than with White (maybe Morozevich ?, although I have not checked his statistics) ?
Perhaps, if you know of such players. I've never heard of any GMs who consistently score better with Black than with White. I would think that there would probably have to be some significant number of such players, not just one, to make it worth writing about. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happened upon a thread at chessgames.com talking about Morozevich's excellent results with Black. On this page malthrope writes, "Just looking quickly over his stats here on CG.com we get... Database of 969 games with Moro winning 410 times... Wins with White 220 (53.66%) Wins with Black 190 (46.34%)" I haven't checked the math, but if malthrope is right even Morozevich does better with White than Black (I'm assuming that the 969 games are split roughly evenly between the two colors). Krakatoa (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we speak about those openings like the exchange variation of the French defence where it is sometimes felt that Black has a kind of advantage even if the position is symetric, precisely because White has to move first ? Done
I've added sections on "Reversed openings" and "Symmetrical openings" and the problems those pose for White, and specifically discuss the Exchange French. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no section "See also". It is not compulsory to have some, but I find they add some value. Done
All in all I am really impressed by this article. It is factual, precise and well-referenced on a subject that is really not easy. At the end of this review I would like to propose it to GA-class at least. For A-class, let's wait until the end of this review :)
SyG (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved from the articles talk page.): Don't think headings should be in quotes. "Drawn with best play", "White to play and win" and Statistics is a short ambiguous(on it's own) word for a title. Done
Done a peer review and this is bits I think apply.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. The lead is to be as concise as possible while still covering the whole article. It seems to do that. Done
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] Done
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?] Done
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] Done
Reflist 2 has come under criticism as it doesn't show well on various browsers and for some it makes the wording so small it can't be read. Done
I've added links, and created a few articles and sub-articles to make links to, so I think that is pretty much done. Please link anything else that you think should be linked. I do intend to create a chess theory article, and link to that when I talk about "theorists," but that will take some work. (I want to talk about opening theory, middlegame theory, and endgame theory.) As for the lead, the guideline says it can be "up to four paragraphs" and should summarize the article well. The current lead is one paragraph (while doesn't violate the guideline, since no minimum length is specified), and I think it summarizes the article well. So I think I've addressed all the items in your peer review. Krakatoa (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing you linked to is entitled "Multiple columns deemed bad." I don't see how that applies to this article -- its reference list only has one column. Note 1 is followed by note 2, then note 3, note 4, and so on until the last note, which is at the bottom. That's one column, right? Krakatoa (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change now. I would not apply this to other article but only here because I think the idea is to push this article to Featured article level. SunCreator (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Neanderthal that I am, I use Internet Explorer, so I couldn't see the problem. I'm gratified to think that you think the article could be a Featured Article. As you know, we have precious few chess article (0.2%) above even B-class. Krakatoa (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics section
I think consideration should be given to splitting up this section and include in other parts of the article. It's sure it's fine in context but a section with statistics might not be to welcomed by some reviewers. SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, the statistics section is in a way the most significant part of the article. It's all well and good to debate, in a vacuum, propositions like, "does White win by force from the starting position"?, "does White have an advantage, and if so, how much?", "does Black have the advantage, because White has to commit himself first?", and so on. The statistics section provides data against which such questions must be considered -- i.e. it's hard to claim that White wins by force if Black scores around 45% (including in games by the strongest players). I also think it would be weird to split this information up, apportioning a sentence to this section, a sentence to that section, and so on. All of the information in the "First move statistics" section is closed related and belongs together. Krakatoa (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are important. Two more suggestions, how about renaming the section so the word 'Statistics' is not included. how about moving the section down to the end of the articles order, so that it like a concluding section. SunCreator (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is one supposed to name it without using the word "statistics"? "Winning percentages"? How is that better? What's the bugaboo about statistics? Krakatoa (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wild about moving the statistics section down to the end. It provides important information necessary to evaluate the relative plausibility of the "Drawn with best play" and "White to play and win" arguments. It's really hiding the ball to put it at the end ("hiding the lede," as some would put it). Does putting it at the beginning violate any Wikipedia principle? Krakatoa (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, is see you;ve renamed it, that seems good. I can't recall where I read about it. It wasn't a guideline, but rather some talk page but I'm unable to locate it to recheck it's context. The nearest I found is Wikipedia:NOT#STATS but that doesn't apply because this article has the statistics nicely explained. SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about caption below the image of Wilhelm Steinitz. At first glance the image looks unrelated to the topic. I don't want to add OR, but if there is something along the lines of "Wilhelm Steinitz considered chess a draw with best play", that would enhance the image. Done
Review tool, still thinks lead is inadequate. Looking at a (good length) suggestion of Wikipedia:Leadhere, it seems sensible to expand the lead to be two paragraphs. Reading the FA criteria I get the idea that concise is better, if so then it's great as it is. SunCreator (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use of capitalisation "White" "white" "Black" "black", especially in winning percentages section is not consistent. Are we happy that it's correct? Done I think(!?).
+38% =31% −31% (total 53.5%) looks unattractive. How about some other way, perhaps "Win 38% Draw 31 % Lose 31%" or putting it in full "White wins 38% draws 31%, and loses 31% giving an overall result of 53.5%". Or even removing some of it given that it's now duplicated to the table. Done
"concluded that White scored 54.1767% plus 0.001164 times White's Elo rating advantage, treating White's rating advantage as +390 if it is better than +390, or -460 if it is worse than -460." ref 10. This doesn't make sense to me at all. It is very interesting that the external reference recommends 35-[elo]-point rating deficit for White to compensate for White's advantage(!). Would seem useful to this article.
Is "Hodgson-Arkell" self evident? Rather then say "Hodgson versus Arkell" and why not go to full names Julian Hodgson-Keith Arkell?
Why are some moves bold while others "1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.0-0 0-0 5.d3 d6" are not?
Ref 70 (Reinhard-Fischer game) is not as you might at first expect(with Fischer's claim), perhaps the comma should go outside the reference, or the sentence reworded to be clear what reference refers to what?
Is sentence wording "defended tenaciously" with ref 79 (Portisch-Tal game) OR? Done (changed wording)
Wikipedia linking doesn't seem to like ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, perhaps it should just be ISBN. Applies to some references as well as some future reading books. DoneSunCreator (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something needs to be done about "+38% =31% −31%" there, and in hundreds of other articles. Bubba73(talk), 15:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Done (as to this article, not the hundreds of others; now we use W38 D31 D31 format, which I (Krakatoa) think is clearer to non-chess players).[reply]
Support This article is very well written and nicely referenced. I therefore support upgrading this article to class A. Two minor comments.
I am not sure I like the statistics table, since it doesn't add very much. Instead perhaps a few other more interesting statistics can be added. I started a threat on the talk page of the article with suggestions. If the table stays, it would be nice to centre it on the page, or even better to have the text left and the table right in that section (like the chessdiagrams below, nicely embedded in the text).
Currently the article is in the Category:Chess. As the category page says: "It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories". Perhaps it would be nice to create a master category chess theory, where this article would feel very much at home. Subcategories could include Category:Chess tactics, Category:Chess strategy, Category:Chess traps and Category:Chess openings. This would be very much in line with what we have done to all the chess bio categories, we grouped them in one master category Category:Chess biographies.
For FA, the web links in the reference should be changed, that is, they should mention when the webpage was retrieved (or accessed), for the format see Wikipedia:Embedded_citations Done
As best I can tell, all the concerns expressed about the article (by Bubba73, SyG, and SunCreator) have now been addressed, and I think to the satisfaction of the proponents of those concerns?
A couple of other random things: (1) I like SunCreator's table (under "Winning Percentages"), but it looks a little funky to me. Is there a way to make the horizontal line for database 1475-2008 go all the way across, and to make all the vertical lines go all the way down? (2) I think the first two words in the article title should be hyphenated: First-move advantage in chess. Anyone else have an opinion on that?
I am not sure I understand your comment on the statistics table, as in my browser there is a horizontal line all the way across, but I am using Firefox. Is it because you may be using Internet Explorer ?
I agree the current title may be slightly confusing, as someone may think it is about the first "move advantage" that a player gets in chess. I would like to have the opinion of other editors before we change it, though.
As you can see above I have changed my assessment from Comment to Approve for A-class. As Bubba73's comments seemed to imply he agreed as well, we just need the following steps:
get the approval of a third reviewer. Both SunCreator (on this page) and Voorlandt (on the Talk page of the article) have done a review and provided some comments, but none has clearly stated they approved the A-class.
wait until 3rd May 2008, as the article has been nominated on 12th April and the review needs to last at least three weeks. (frustrating, clearly, but gives enough time to everyone to join in).
wait one week after the last comment has been made, in order to ensure noone has a last-minute objection to be made.
Above, I also said I support the A class. However they are plenty of comments here that can improve the article (see for instance Bubba's comments, and my comment on the refs). A lot of them minor, so they should be easy to fix. Can something be done about the layout of this review? It is very hard to follow as comments are scattered all over the place in no hierarchical structure. Perhaps all comments that are no longer relevant can be removed, and all other comments grouped? Voorlandt (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me this article seems GA class right now, should it be proposed as GA or should it continue to be improved and go for FA class? SunCreator (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it is a bit different, as A-class is defined by each WikiProject, while both FA-class and GA-class have "transversal" processes about reviews (meaning any subject can be proposed). In some WikiProjects the A-class is considered just a corridor before FA-class, in others it can be a definite state. For example Bughouse Chess will have a very hard time to become FA-class because some of the remaining issues (e.g. history) just need sources that do not appear to exist! SyG (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close out the nomination?
I count four Supports (Bubba73, SyG, SunCreator, and Voorlandt), one more than necessary, and no opposition. It's officially May 3 Wikipedia time, and I believe more than one week since the last comment. Does someone want to close out the nomination? Krakatoa (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see noone opposing to this article being uprated, so I shall close the review and declare this article has successfully passed the A-class review. Well done, and thanks to all for your work! SyG (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
