# Talk:Checkers (video game)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Checkers (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Æ's old account wasn't working (talk · contribs) 10:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 13:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article; I should have a review up today or tomorrow. --PresN 13:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
The article as a whole looks great, so it's really just cleanup issues I saw as I went through, there's not really structural problems or missing elements. My reviewing style is to make a list of issues and thoughts as I read through the article, rather than use a checklist template. I'm just going to fix minor punctuation issues myself rather than type them up here.

Unclear why the lede has citations, especially ones that aren't used in the body
"Arthur Samuel later discovered it the same year in Toronto, Canada during a conference where Strachey described Checkers, prompting Samuel to develop his own version in 1952 on the IBM 701." - discovered but it was described; later but the same year but 1952; try "Later that year at a conference in Toronto, Canada, Strachey described Checkers to Arthur Samuel, prompting him to develop his own version on the IBM 701."
I feel like the lede should mention that this was the first known computer game to be created for a general-purpose computer, and that its one of (or maybe the) earliest known games to display visuals on an electronic screen, that's pretty important to its legacy
"Christopher Strachey was a British computer scientist known for being one of the founders" - founders of what?
"However, the project was delayed for many months due to technical, political, and economic reasons." -> "The project was delayed for many months, however, due to technical, political, and economic reasons." (don't start sentences with "however")
"Discouraged and lacking diplomacy, Turing abandoned the highly ambitious project" - unclear what "lacking diplomacy" is supposed to mean
"He was also influenced in his choice by Charles Babbage, his analytical engine, and his proposals for chess and checkers games." -> "He was also influenced in his choice by Charles Babbage's analytical engine and proposals for chess and checkers games." (the "his" is ambiguous since you already said his in the sentence)
"However, programming errors prevented it from functioning correctly.[13] Additionally, the prototype’s memory was insufficient to run the game properly.[14]" -> "Programming errors, however, prevented it from functioning correctly, and the prototype's memory was insufficient to run the game properly.[13][14]"
"Convinced by this idea, Strachey temporarily set aside his checkers program. The final version of Checkers..." These two sentences jar a bit, as you go from him pausing work to summary information; I think the "longest program record" makes more sense in the last paragraph of this section, where you repeate the 1000 line thing anyway.
"Nevertheless,... Moreover,... Meanwhile, ... Additionally," - you start every sentence of this paragraph with an adverb, which reads choppy - drop the meanwhile and additionally.
"Other laboratory members were initially amused to see Strachey eager to run his program on punched tape, After correcting a few errors, it was able to play "God Save the King" through a loudspeaker." - Unless I'm confused, the program wasn't to play the song but to play the checkers game (with the song at the end), so this is implying but not stating that the checkers part worked too, right? Also, you just changed it, but now it doesn't explain why the other lab members were amused. So "Other laboratory members were initially amused to see Strachey eager to run his program on punched tape as they did not believe that a newcomer could succeed in running a complex program on the first try. After he corrected a few errors, however, the program worked, successfully playing a game of checkers followed by "God Save the King" through a loudspeaker."
You say that Checkers was "unique" for being written for a general-purpose computer, which it was, but it was also the first game written for such (see Early history of video games for cites for that)
Maybe mention that while Turochamp was "designed by Turing in 1948", it was "designed by Turing in 1948 but never successfully run on a computer" to explain why Checkers is still pretty notable for playing the computer side of a game four years later.
"At the time when Strachey ported Checkers to the Mark 1" - "Around the same time as Strachey was porting Checkers to the Mark 1", since it wasn't literally the same time and the timeline is a bit ambiguous
"The game inspired Arthur Samuel" - specify Checkers, since you talk about two games immediately prior
You call it the "EDSAC at the University of Cambridge" the second time you mention the EDSAC, rather than the first
The lede sentence "Checkers would fade into obscurity in the following years, being largely forgotten until renewed interest in the early history of video games in the 21st century brought it to prominence." doesn't seem to be summarizing anything in legacy; it's certainly not wrong but I think you need a sourced sentence about it in the body.
Ref 16 is a book and so should be cited like the other books in Bibliography (and also the isbn should be formatted like the others (978-2-918272-10-6)); refs and 27 21 were the same but I fixed them as the books were in bibliography, but they also don't have page numbers or chapter titles; ref 22 also should be cited like the other books in Bibliography and also has the chapter title partially in French
Ref 2 and 14 have the same chapter number/name - is that correct?

 Done Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Made some more tweaks myself, and passing! --PresN 16:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi all,
Apologies for the recent move without discussing first! So basically I am concerned that the title of the article is not aligned with WP:UCRN. My reasoning: Checkers has been implemented at least hundreds of times, and we might agree that Strachey's 1952 implementation is the most important instance. But it's not the one most associated with common natural language usage. Readers are more likely to expect a discussion of checkers as a general video game concept or paradigm. Compare: chess (video game) which, appropriately, redirects to computer chess.
Beyond that, I took a look at WP:NCVGDAB, which led me to the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which I will review below.
I'm comparing the present title with a potential redirect to, say, Checkers#Computer checkers.

1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
Not satisfied: most readers will be more likely to have heard of Checkers#Computer checkers compared to the present page.
2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
Uncertain: I think it could be argued either way. The present topic has long-term educational value, notability, and significance, however, so does the topic of computer checkers implementations in general. So I don't see why this has more educational value than that, although they are both clearly important and closely related to each other.
Thoughts? @Annh07: @Zxcvbnm: @PresN: Interested in hearing your opinions as more experienced editors in this space!
Thanks,
Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Æ's old account wasn't working: Adding an additional ping for your thoughts! :) Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Readers are more likely to expect a discussion of checkers as a general video game concept or paradigm [citation needed]
The chess example doesn't work, because there is no video game called "Chess".
More to the point, "computer checkers" is more general than "checkers video game", as the example of the robot implementation shows, whereas Strachey's "Checkers" is exactly that, a video game. Paradoctor (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm.
there is no video game called "Chess" [citation needed]
I am certain that many computer programs have been written called exactly that. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Should be easy enough to prove, then. You're not going to ask me to prove a negative, are you? Paradoctor (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The (1952 video game) disambiguator would be completely fine if the title 'Checkers (video game)' was redirected to Checkers#Computer checkers.
In other words, Checkers (1952 video game) should be this article's title, as it correctly disambiguates this specific game from the general topic of computer checkers. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree that would make more sense. Thanks for making the requested move below. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That's myself, @AE, @Bobby Cohn in favor of the hatnotes to clarify article scope, @Paradoctor against. Any others want to weigh in? diff Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)