Talk:Mittens (chess)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Passed MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 21:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Schminnte, happy to review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schminnte, I've finished my review. Not too many comments here, this is definitely close to being ready for GA! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm active just now so I'll look over these points in the coming hours. Thanks again for the review! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk:I think I've addressed your points. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schminnte: This is good for GA. See the citation wikilinking problem below. I'll pass it, but make sure to refer to that in the future. Great job on the article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is free of typos and understandable. Nicely done!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In the lead, I think This popularity was one of the reasons... should be merged with the previous sentence. Possibly, The engine became a viral sensation in the chess community due to exposure through content made by chess streamers and a social media marketing campaign, later contributing to record levels of traffic to the website on Chess.com, causing database scalability issues. Other than that, the prose is understandable and free of typos. Well done! Done I pretty much copied you there, nice wording. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The following refs need to have their publishers wikilinked: Ref 7 (CNN Business) Ref 8 (WSJ) Ref 12 (Dot Esports) ~~Additionally, a "Secondary sources" header should be added under "References". Then, switch the placement of the two, so primaries are first followed by secondary.~~ Not done I deliberately did not like those sources as they are already linked in prose: I thought this would be considered OVERLINKING. Please correct me if wrong. Source headers is Done. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Just bit down from that MOS page is MOS:DUPLINK, which states that Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All sources are from reliable news websites (like CNN Business) or blogs (like JoeBlogs). I'll note that primary sources from chess.com are used, but I consider their usage appropriate, and they are distinguished in the "References" section.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is well-cited; no OR visible. Chess.com is cited on a statement about how Mittens scored in a tournament, so it's usage is appropriate.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism. I will note that it shows a high score for the Dot Esports article, but that's because of a blockquote in the article, so it's all good.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the release, design, rating, and impact; all good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article stays focused on the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Though, I have a concern about the chess.com logo at the top of the article. It seems that the image was uploaded to Commons by a now deleted user. The article for chess.com has the same image, just as an SVG instead of a PNG. The issue is that the SVG is licensed under fair use because it's a copyrighted logo. This leads me to believe that the PNG in Mittens (chess engine) is illegally licensed under CC. I've nominated it for deletion accordingly, so I suggest you either remove it or swap it with something else. Done replaced with navbox for chess programming. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Images of Karpov and Nakamura are properly licensed under CC.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images of Karpov and Nakamura are appropriate and captioned
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.