Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review

As explained at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, an A-class article should be at the stage of quality where it can at least be considered for featured article. However, objections over relatively minor issues of writing style or formatting can be avoided at this stage; a comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written article should qualify for A-Class status even if it could use some minor further copyediting.

As it is the last step before the FA-review, the article should:

1. fully comply with all the GA-class criteria
2. comply with the FA-class criteria, except possibly some minor style issues.

The GA-class criteria are presented at Wikipedia:Good article criteria while the FA-class criteria are explained at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

For medium insights on the different classes please read:

• Featured Article Criteria
• Assessment
• Good Article Criteria
• Good Articles
• Peer Review (although the Peer Review system described there seems dormant for the moment, according to their Talk page)

For expert insights on the different classes you may also read the corresponding talk pages:

• Talk:Featured Article Criteria
• Talk:Assessment
• Talk:Good Article Criteria
• Talk:Grading scheme

=Review process=

To nominate an article, add it to the current candidates list below and write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes ~~~~.

Before nominating an article, it may be a good idea to put it through an automated peer-review, for example as explained at User:AndyZ/peerreviewer. This should help to detect the most obvious improvements needed, before the nomination.

To review an article, follow the general steps explained at Wikipedia:Peer review, but bear in mind that an A-class review has slightly different objectives than a general peer-review.

As a first step it may be a good idea to put the proposed article through an automated peer-review. Given the context of chess, put particular attention to the fulfillment of the WP:NOR policy (e.g. for openings articles).

Some chess articles may also fall into the scope of another Wikiproject. For example the article on Alexander Alekhine is also in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. In such cases it may be a good idea to check that the article mostly complies with the Guidelines decided in this other WikiProject, as long as they are relevant for the given article. Possible conflicts between the Guidelines from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess and the Guidelines from the other relevant WikiProjects should be underlined.

Your review shall include a conclusion about the article, which can be:

• Comment: when you have questions and objections that need to be addressed before you can give your assessment.
• Support: which implies you think the article has reached the level of quality of A-class, and is almost ready to go for a FA-review.
• Assess as X-class: please indicate the level of quality you think the article has achieved, be it Stub-class, Start-class, C-class, B-class or GA-class.

Reviews can be closed by anyone after:

1. a minimum of two editors (not too involved in writing the article) have reviewed the article,
2. at least three weeks have elapsed since the start of the review process,
3. at least one week has elapsed since the last comment was done in the review process.

A reviewed article will generally be promoted to A-Class if the following two conditions are met:

1. it has garnered at least three endorsements from uninvolved editors,
2. there are no substantive objections indicative of a major flaw in the article.

The process of closing the review shall be done in 3 steps:

1. add a few sentences to the review explaining why you are closing the review (see conditions above) and what assessment the article has reached.
2. copy/paste the review in the corresponding section "Closed reviews".
3. change the assessment in the Talk page of the reviewed article.
4. explain in the Talk page of the reviewed article that the review is closed and what assessment the article has reached. Put a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review so that anyone can come here to investigate the conclusions of the review.

A closed review cannot be reopened. The article shall go through a whole new review, but past positive comments can be considered as still valid, by default. That means if someone had assessed the article as A-class in a past review, it can be assumed that his assessment is still valid for a new review, unless the given assessor states otherwise.

=Current candidates=

I nominate McDonnell Gambit as in my opinion it is good enough, four example games and a well written introduction I believe mostly written by IHardlyThinkSo, I have written a bit of it myself but I don't think I am being to biased. Michael james campbell (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

=Closed reviews=

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Ashot Nadanian}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Judit Polgár}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/George H.D. Gossip}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Rules of chess}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Bughouse Chess}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/First-move advantage in chess}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Howard Staunton}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Swindle (chess)}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Chess World Cup 2007}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Alexander Alekhine}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Endgame tablebase}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Paul Morphy}}

=Aborted reviews=

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Adolf Anderssen}}

=History of quality articles=

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/History}}

Review

Chess

Chess