Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bughouse chess/archive1

Add links
Source: 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 04:56, 3 September 2007.

Bughouse chess

Self nomination. In the past months this article has been totally rewritten. It is currently A-class, and I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Content wise, I had it proofread by several expert bughouse players. Voorlandt 06:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite the paragraph "Communication", preferably from an official rulebook.

HansHermans 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose Needs more info about history of the game and competitive bughouse.

  • I agree that ideally, the history section would be longer. Unfortunately this information is not available, at least without doing original research. The closest I got was an email from Jeremy Graham, who was the founder of the Bughouse Newsletter in 1990. All he could tell me would here be classified as speculation (he gave me 3 possible origins, all in the US). I personally believe that bughouse was invented somewhat simultaneously around the 1960s (a date which he could confirm to me). It appears to have popped up all over the world. Some indication that this might be true is that bughouse is called Hungarian chess in Argentinia; Swedish chess in Russia; Polish chess in the Netherlands and Holland chess in the Czech Republic. It is all speculation, and most important, I don't have a single reference on the history of bughouse, except for the encyclopaedia of chess variants. I have written to several people and nobody could give me an answer, let alone a reference to show for it. Note that the dutch wikipedia says it was invented by the dutch! It is all speculation. Voorlandt 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no History section. Write a History section. Just one sentence saying "the history of bughouse chess is unknown, but there are a few legends" then two paragraphs about the legends is enough. Of course, if there's more info, add more info. --Kaypoh 12:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Even that I cannot do. I repeat: to my knowledge (and I did quite a bit of research), there is not a single written source on the history of bughouse, unless you count speculation in private emails. I simply can't add them without breaking
WP:OR. I am marking this done because there really is nothing me or anyone else can do about this. Voorlandt 09:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for these suggestions. I have added answers to the first 3 of these questions, and it is good to have them in the article. It is however not the wealth of information you were probably expecting. For instance, there is no equivalent of FIDE for bughouse, therefore there is not that much I can say about it. However I did divide the tournaments in two sections: those organised by national chess federations and those privately organised; which makes that section more clear imo. Voorlandt 11:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference second paragraph of "Online" section. Don't use "your partner". --Kaypoh 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I hate doing this - as I was the one whose support for the A-class rating meant it got through, and I feel it does satisfy most of the FAC - but per Kaypoh I can't fully support it - as I've said before, the history section needs more depth. Compare this article to the main chess one and there's a huge quality gulf - even accepting the fact that an article as hugely in depth as the chess one is impossible with a variation like this. Fix Kaypoh's issues, and perhaps make it a bit longer generally - seems a little on the short side - and I'll change to support. Addyboy 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think length is an issue. See for instance Architecture_of_Windows_NT, which has the same length and hardly any references. Also I do think it is of appropriate length. ("It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail") They are 3 books about bughouse, thousands about chess, I believe this should be reflected in the article's length. As I mentioned above, there is really nothing to add about the history. Is there any specific other section you would like to see expanded? I don't think there is a huge quality gap. I had it reread by several expert bughouse players who really liked the article. Also, the article was recently quoted as being superior to the recent bughouse book in its explanation of the rules (Chess Life magazine, August 2007, P14). Voorlandt 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Fails to live up to the lead requirement of FAs: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." in its offensive use of the generic male. Other 1a issues.

  • "The game is usually played at a fast time control, this together with the passing and dropping of pieces can make the game look chaotic and random to the casual onlooker." Punctuation please—semicolon, then comma after "this".
  • The "although" in the lead is illogical.
    • It is usually played as a diversion (something that diverts or amuses: pastime) from chess. In a lot of clubs bughouse is played after the completion of tournament chess. Still, a few dedicated tournaments exist (read: here the game is played seriously). Would any of "but also" or "however" be better in that sentence? Voorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS breach in infoblot: en dash for ranges.
    •  Done Note that it is also wrong in the chess article. Voorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rules: players ... plays ... player plays ... plays ... player plays. All in less than 60 words.
    •  Done I have removed a few "plays", reads much better now. Voorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only males are allowed to play? The generic male is one of my pet hates (it excludes half the population, even if you might claim it doesn't). "plays his opponent". This is littered through the article. There are clearly established ways of avoiding it: pluralise "players" where possible; use "the opponent", etc; or even the singular they if you must.
    •  Done. Thanks for pointing this out, I simply wasn't realising this. However to my defence: the featured article chess has them (for instance third line: "each player, referred to by the color of his pieces"); also encyclopaedia Britannica 2007 (from chess: "A drawn position may be one in which Black lacks enough material to win or in which White has created an impenetrable fortress for his pieces .."). Voorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus more; needs someone unfamiliar to copy-edit. Tony 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the use of the generic male

These are no longer present in the article, so the discussion whether or not it is ok to have them is irrelevant for the upgrading of this article. To keep things separate, I moved the discussion here. Voorlandt 09:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 'Comment'It's harsh to call the use of "his" sexist, as gender neutral terminology in relation to chess players is all but unheard of, although I suppose I can agree considering to what it refers. Voorlandt perhaps you'll realise with this why I suggested a formal peer review before the submission to FAC ;) (oh, and this is Addyboy by the way in case you were wondering) Caissa's DeathAngel 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The generic use of "he" is hardly sexist, Tony. FAC isn't the place for you to advance your political agenda. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Parnham, how old are you? 95? I'm picturing a curmudgeonly, ungenerous person who's stuck on the gender relations of the 1950s. But I'm sure you're not that, which makes your comment all the stranger. The article
gender-neutral language in English
, which manages to be remarkably free of POV, I think, says the following, inter alia:

For example, gender-neutral language has gained support from major textbook publishers, and from professional and academic groups such as the American Psychological Association and the Associated Press. Newspapers like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal avoid such language. Many law journals, psychology journals, and literature journals do not print articles or papers that use gender-inclusive language.[1] Recent employee policy manuals have begun to include strongly worded statements prescribing avoidance of language that potentially could be considered discriminatory. The wording of this statement from a policy manual is typical: "All documents, publications or presentations developed by all constituencies…shall be written in gender neutral and/or gender inclusive language.[4] Employees are told that they need to be aware of their responsibilities to avoid discriminatory language, and that they are required to implement the enterprise's commitment to treat stakeholders equally and with courtesy. Institutional members are instructed, as a matter of corporate policy, to avoid using language that may even appear to be discriminatory, or that may gratuitously give offense in verbal or written communication. They also provide guidance about how to reflect the concept of valuing diversity in language usage.

As for your accusation that I'm peddling a political agenda, you're damn right I am: it's one that WP and all other self-respecting bodies should have embraced long ago. I'm most willing to engage in debate as to why this is the only sane course of action (but on a talk page, not here). Voorlandt, the sexist language was cleaned out of chess before it was promoted recently. It's disappointing to see that someone has re-inserted it. I'll be approaching the editors soon about this. Tony 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC) PS I'm certain that "gender-inclusive" should be "gender-specific", just before reference [1]—otherwise it doesn't make sense. I'll bring this to the attention of the cotributors.[reply]

Voorlandt, I've searched through Chess and can't find a single use of the generic male pronoun. Tony 02:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am missing something but how about the example I gave above or this (third paragraph in the section Chess#Rules): "When a player's king is under immediate threat of capture, it is said to be in check. A player is not permitted to make any move that would place his king in check. If his king is in check, he must make a move to take the king out of check. " Voorlandt 05:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless Voorlandt, the fact that Chess is an FA does not make it perfect - it could be something needing fixed in that article as well! I really do think this needs to be in a formal peer review, not FAC right now Caissa's DeathAngel 08:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and not me started the comparison with the chess article, and the alleged huge quality gulf between the two articles. I have addressed the use of generic male pronoun in the bughouse article, and was merely pointing to the chess article to show that this mistake is not uncommon. And now it would be nice to stop talking about the chess article here. Voorlandt 08:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be fair enough, but you appear to be using the fact that is a common error as justification for it being there - all I'm doing is pointing out that this is not the case, and it should be fixed elsewhere if it appears elsewhere. And FWIW, I merely used chess as an example of what to me an FA should look like - any number of others would suffice.Caissa's DeathAngel 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using the male generic (e.g, "he" instead of "he or she") is perfectly acceptable. Raul654 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bughouse_chess/archive1&oldid=155359734"