Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

[edit]
FAR, has been on main page.

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

Comments from Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Serious problems with the references, among other issues:

  • It seems the history section is meant to be in chronological order, but fails at doing this. 2008 is mentioned before 1996 at the end of the section. Please reorganize.
done. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unreferenced paragraph: "Generally, it is not allowed to play a stone in such a way that one of your own chains is left without liberties. Such a move is dubbed suicide. An exception to this rule occurs if doing so captures one or more of the opponent's stones. In this case, the opponent's stones are captured first, leaving the newly played stone at least one liberty."
Will reference this, but need to determine the status of sensei's library first.HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced. HermanHiddema (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reference for "Go was introduced to the West at the end of the 19th century, when German scientist Oskar Korschelt wrote the first Western treatise on the game."
this is referenced in the reference at the end of the next sentence. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could add another ref tag, just to avoid any confusion in the future. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, but since this reference is of questionable reliability anyway, I will wait until I have a better one. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced. HermanHiddema (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Important consequences" section is unreferenced entirely except for one sentence.
The single reference supports this whole section. I can add named ref tags a few times if required. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A ref tag at the end of each paragraph would be good. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are two basic ways to count the score at the end of the game." - end of the game, or end of a game? (Not sure)
I am not sure what the difference is, can you explain? HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
End of the game is clearly better in my opinion.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like there is only one go game, but the context is always referring to the end of this game, so I would suggest that the is better than a. What a would mean is at the end of each game, so either could be used. Oakwillow (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose could be better: "The oldest counting method of these is called territory scoring and which is used in Japan, Korea and most Western nations countries."
done. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the refs seem to be misplaced. And you've got an odd period: "...standardized set of international rules.[34]."
Can you be more specific? HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's really personal taste, so it's not mandatory - but I prefer it when ref tags come at the end of a sentence instead of in-between after commas. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, I have only placed references in the middle of sentences if there is more than one reference or if the reference very specifically supports only part of the sentence. I will look in to this though, but will give other issues priority for now. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is mostly fixed now, where appropriate. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the book refs do not have page numbers.
I will look in to this. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a lot of the web refs are missing access dates.
Will look in to this too. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • Sensei's Library - this reference is used for many of the footnotes, but the site itself doesn't seem to be reliable?
This is an important issue. If Sensei's Library is not accepted as a reliable source, we may as well scratch this FAC for now. I have created space for discussion on this below HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Written by John Fairbairn, well known expert in the field that has published on it. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Written by Robert Jasiek, well known expert on rules, member of the EGF rules committee. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google brings up 8,820 results for Robert Jasiek, but I'm not seeing any notable publications. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The publishing market for Go is rather small, especially in the rules arcana area, so I would guess that most of Jasieks work is either publiched in eg Go World or is only distributed to other specialists in the field. The EGF lists Jasiek as a rules commission member, and he is usually present at IGF rules meetings, eg this report lists him as the EGF representative and also notes that "In between the 5th and the 6th meetings, some documents were circulated by email". I do not think Jasiek has published in any peer-reviewed magazines. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to find a better source. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with a better source. HermanHiddema (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to find a better source. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Publication of the European Go Federation, but I may be able find a different reference. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Converted to footnote. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on Go here were written either by John Fairbairn or by Charles Matthews, both well knows experts on the subject that have published. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I hadn't seen that one when going over it, will find a replacement. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use the language parameter of the Cite/Citation templates to identify non-English sources.
Ok, will work on that. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't spot any non-english sources. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Variants and related games" section seems like an afterthought, only one paragraph long - consider expanding or merging with another section?
I will discuss this with fellow editors. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, merged into See Also. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the sections are full of short paragraphs which do not flow together. I recommend a reshuffle.
  • I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki can't be reliable? Is that supposed to be a joke?--ZincBelief (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the reliability scale, a wiki is not reliable because anyone can add any information, reliable or not. The same applies to Wikipedia, except we try to use reliable sources in the form of footnotes here, so at least readers know what our material is based on. Technically, an encyclopedia in itself is not a good source (for example, I would not cite Britannica or Wikipedia for a term paper because it's just bad practice). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...Anyway, the criteria is: factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; Wiki websites can of course be vandalised, but the evidence suggests that they are infact accurately maintained sources of reliable information. See wikipedia for an example of this. This argument is slightly veering toward the ridiculous, isn't it? Anyway, the question is whether Senseis Library is a reliable source. As a Go player I would answer yes, ask any other Go player the same question and I bet they'd say yes too. However glorious regulations prevent this reputation for reliability being allowed to stand here, I can have some sympathy for this. There are things I cannot have sympathy for. The practice of citations on wikipedia is, in my estimation, done in a pedantic and braindead fashion, and I have no idea why it has been allowed to develop in this fashion. Why should we demand featured articles are not referenced properly? Instead of referencing several sources for complex points, one source must be given to satisfy each and every blindingly obvious point that didn't need to be cited in the first place. Yet whole viewpoints are not touched because that would require the reviewer to consider something deeper that visual representation of text. Personally, I would suggest that Senseis Library is a perfectly valid reference when used in combination with other sources. Paticularly where we are citing for trivial claims that might as well be supplied with http://www.mysearchengineofchoice.com. Please excuse my rant, but I really find the attitude toward citations so completely ridiculous that I can no longer bring myself to even attempt to reference an article toward some degree of divine status--ZincBelief (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Typically a reliable source is one which has a widespread reputation, its own peer review process, or some other way we can be sure of accuracy. The wiki in question does not cite its sources, so it's simply out of the question to use it instead of a published book. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Senseis Library actually has a widespread reputation amongst the Go Community. I think the American Go Association cited it in the Top 10 most useful Go websites. One software developer even made a product which uses it alone as a reference source for Go terms. If you research on your own free time (a chore I know) you will find it a consistently reliable source of information. --ZincBelief (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't agree with Wacky and I's take on this, you're welcome to post a question over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about it, and see what others think also. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would that really help do you think? Senseis Library has a reputation for accuracy. Its editors ensure articles there are kept informative and up to date. This is a living peer review process as it where. When pages are deemed broken, there is the wiki-master-edit process on Senseis Library. The material on the wiki is also non contentious (in the main), an important adjective in the field of Wikipedia Reliable Sources. To describe use of Senseis Library as out of the question is perverse to my mind. I mean I could live with forcing somebody to link to a page version, but just claiming that the whole library cannot be used seems barking to me. A library used on a day to day basis to provide accessible and educational material to beginner Go players cannot be used as a reliable source? Is that really a sensible claim? No it is not really a senseible claim. I don't need to ask on another page to convince myself of that. It stands to reason that a library of information maintained by the Go playing community can be used to explain basic concepts. If Featured Article Status forbids logical arguments like this then it is entirely without merit. To denigrate information and knowledge on an arbitrary basis is not the job of Wikipedia.

I realise though that I have begun to rant again. Sorry. --ZincBelief (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that the WP:V and WP:RS both specify "third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking". The general consensus is that wiki's don't qualify, but I really urge you to go to the Noticeboard if you want third or fourth opinions. It isn't the FAC process that demands RS, it's a WP policy. FAC just requires that articles meet WP policies. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that if you can produce an reliable source (preferably more than one) that states that Senseis Library has a reputation for accuracy, then the Library would acceptable as a source for this article. In some ways, it is analogous to our policy on self-published works – normally disallowed, but we'd be prepared to make exceptions. Bluap (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The internet is full of hotlinks which recommend Senseis Library as a useful source of information. I take it these wouldn't be acceptable though. I wonder what would suffice. Can we have certified Go players bizarrely laying down some speel recognizing Senseis Library as a reliable source of information on non contentious issues? Charles Matthews, certified third dan, third biggest contributor to wikipedia, and one time most profilic author on senseis library, would he do? Or would there be some doubt that he had just mistaken it for uncyclopedia?--ZincBelief (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard will help if you ask there. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 89 is broken.

fixed.

By me. :-) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 90 and 92 need page numbers, ISBN information.

will look that up.

    • Ref 93 needs 'pp.' before the page numbers.

fixed

    • Ref 60 and 91 access dates are not linked, but the rest are.

I'll go check why :-) Ok, 60 is fixed, used "accessmonth"/"accessyear" instead of "accessdate". 91 is still not linked, because it uses the "citation" instead of the "cite web" template. But as this is now a web citation, that doesn't seem proper to use. It is published in Bozulich 2001, the url is a bonus.

OK, I was not aware of that. That'll take some time to fix :-( HermanHiddema (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, careful use of good ol' Find and Replace has done it for me in the past! Just copy and paste the wikipedia syntax into a text document, then, once done, paste it back into wikipedia and save the changes. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My text editor doesn't like the Kanji and other strange characters used in the page :-( HermanHiddema (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 2 and 84 are Sensei's Library.
These are footnotes, not citations, meant to provide extra info, not to verify.
Issue: Acceptability of Sensei's Library as a reliable source (resolved) ~ HermanHiddema (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sensei's Library is used many times to reference basic go terms, tactics and rules. If this is not acceptable for WP, then there is no reason to go through with this FAC at this time, as it will take some time to find other sources for this. Sensei's Library is a wiki, and as such is self-published, it is an active wiki, which gets anywhere from 10 to 50 edits per day. A significant part of the editors are experts, and it is recognized as a very valuable resource within the Go community. The referenced articles are generally long-time stable articles which deal with very basic "common knowledge" kinds of subjects. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I personally believe it's not a reliable source, as it is a self-published wiki which does not cite its sources. We'll see what Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) thinks when they get around to reviewing the sources. You should get some books on the tactics to replace the Sensei's Library footnotes, in my opinion. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Not only is Sensei's library a wiki, which pretty much means it fails the reliability test, there are a number of references that are websites that don't give publisher or last access date. Also a problem would be http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/lesson/knowledge-e/ this site, or http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/advant.html. I strongly suggest cleaning up the references, replacing the Sensei's library with published strategy guides, and then dropping me a note on my talk page when the website references are giving publisher, last access date and title of the page at hte very least. I'm sorry that I just don't have the time to go through every single website when it's pretty clear that they are going to change radically shortly. I'm not sure if it would be best to withdraw this nomination or try to work on it some more, that's up to you. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced most Sensei's Library references on rules, strategy and tactics with a new reference to a stategy guide. Will do the rest later, right now I'm gonna watch the Dutch play in Euro 2008 ;-) HermanHiddema (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All references to Sensei's have been replaced, except for those where the reference is a footnote (refs 2, 82, 83 and 85 in this version), providing extra information, and not a citation meant to verify the text. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Many references are missing publishers. Format them per WP:CITE/ES
Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use en dashes for page ranges in references.
Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • I have tried my best to catch all problems with the citations, please check through all of them properly.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth - Talk Edits - 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 15 "AGA 1995 Historical Book is lacking a last access date
Fixed.
  • Same for current ref 16 "Bozulich, Richard The Magic of Go...
This one is no longer available, but is available through the web archive. What is the proper way to fix that?
Use the web archive or replace with a book. Now how exactly you use the webarchive things.. I don't know. Where I edit, I don't need them. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Magic Of Go was a newspaper column of the Daily Yomuri that isn't really necessary. One can simply reference the newspaper instead--ZincBelief (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced this with a link to the web archive version HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the GoGD (Farbairn & Hall) note refering to? I can't find it in the references.
See below.
Need to list it in the references like the other often used ones. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed it under the references HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 30 John Fairbairn, probably should list it Fairbairn, John to match the rest of the references
Fixed.

GoGoD is short for Games of Go on Disk, and is a commercial product which includes essays on many topics, as well as records of high level games. The articles are written by John Fairbairn, the games entered by T Mark Hall. Fairbairn is well published on Go. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoGoD is now in the references section (see above) HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 32 Hansen, Fred is lacking a last access date.
Fixed.
Written by the Rules Committee of the American Go Association
You should actually be using the latest AGA rules text (from the usgo website) in combination with a link from the French and UK websites (I don't know how to format links to foreign websites). John Fairbairn wrote an article about AGA rules on the GoGod website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This document is an appendix, and is not included in either the "conciserules" or "completerules" PDF documents on the AGA website. Instead, the AGA website links to the url used above from their rules section as being a Commentary/Clarification. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jasiek is a member of the European Go Federation Rules Commission and the International Go Rules Forum (IGRF), and is generally considered one of the foremost experts on rules arcana.
  • What makes current ref 47 an FAQ from a usenet group reliable?
This is basically subject specific common knowledge, a newsgroup FAQ gathers a lot of that kind of information.
Yes, but who wrote the information? Usenet postings are very hard to use as RS's and knowing who wrote the information is a step towards that. Or you could source the information to a book, which would solve the usenet problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is subject specific common knowledge and doesn't need a reference. The current reference again seems to point to Senseis Library. How about using page 188 of Go, The World's Most fascinating Game. A book published by the Nihon Kiin? (No ISBN noticeable on my copy) or perhaps http://www.britgo.org/organisers/mcmahonpairing.html mentioning traditional system. Either of these should be fine, but no actual reference is needed per wikipedia guidelines on Citation.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the reference to the Usenet FAQ in favor of the reference provided by ZincBelief HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ales Cieply is the ratings commisioner of the European Go Federation, and the site in question is the official EGF ratings page. I guess publisher would be EGF?

Yes, the publisher would be EGF. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the European Go Federation as publisher. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MSO World articles are written by either John Fairbairn or Charles Matthews, both go writers with published work.
Leave this out for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm sorry, do you mean that I should remove this reference? HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means that I think it's an "on the fence" source, and I'm not striking the issue as resolved, but leaving it unstruck for other reviewers to decide whether its reliable on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As with GoGod articles on GoBase are published by established authors. It can also be viewed (like Sensei's Library but without being a wiki) as a repository of subject specific common knowledge which doesn't need to be cited per wikipedia citation policy.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GoBase is a well respected site which provides a database of game results, players and tournaments. All such information is verifiable with the relevant organizers, pro organizations, etc. The references provided give easy access to an overview of which players won how many tournaments in what years. This is basically raw data, GoBase does not draw conclusions from this other than to list the tournament winners in the order of "most tournament victories". HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 60 Charles Matthews, probably should put last name first to match the rest of the notes
Fixed.
  • Current ref 71 Nakayama noriyuki "Memories of Kitani" is lacking a page number
Fixed.
  • Current ref 79 Keene, Raymond & Levy, David "How to beat your chess computer" is lacking a publisher
Fixed--ZincBelief (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is current ref 85 Trevanian as quotedin McDonald, Brian "Go in Western Literature" a newsletter, journal, book? Needs more bibliographical information and a last access date
Trevanian is a Fictional Detective I think, he should be referenced elsewhere. Will look... So somebody has deleted the article on Shibumi itself. http://www.britgo.org/general/celeb/ gives another reference, http://www.epinions.com/content_12566892164 is another, http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Shibumi/Trevanian/e/9781400098033 is another. The one currently shown appears to be an edited version of a newsgroup post (original research perhaps?). Referencing the book itself is another approach.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this reference by using a proper citation template, and adding publisher and editor. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 89 is borked somehow.
Fixed.
  • Current ref 92 Gobet F ... is lacking publication date
Fixed--ZincBelief (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 94 Chen et. al. is lacking a page number
Probably because the whole publication is relevant, is there a convention for that circumstance?--ZincBelief (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then if the work is small enough, you just leave it as it is. If it's over about 100 pages, citing the whole work is borderline (unless you're citing the fact that the work exists). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 95 Verghese et al is lacking a page number
One dead link with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dead link was the "Bozulich, Richard The Magic of Go..." link that was also mention above as missing. This has been replace with a web archive link. Assitionally, there was one link which returned a "Permanently Moved" status (Asiaweek, current ref 88) which I hace also replaced with a web archive link. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    • 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.

-- HermanHiddema (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis of many issues with accuracy and comprehensiveness - Peripitus (Talk) 03:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
From the reference is it not clear - newspapers are not mentioned in the referenced - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

*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)[reply]
perhaps this is fair enough - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I have to disagree that just wikilinking is sufficient - look at the brief but well descriptive section in Chess#Strategy_and_tactics - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

- Peripitus (Talk) 03:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Go_(board_game)/archive1&oldid=1126524932"