Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/FAQ/Assessment

message: ==Endgame tablebase==
FYI, Endgame tablebase has been a featured article candidate since late March. youngvalter 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: FYI, Endgame tablebase has been a featured article candidate since late March. youngvalter 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Endgame tablebase

message: ==Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project==
Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? I know Chess is a featured article, any others? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality assessment

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? I know Chess is a featured article, any others? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

message: I have just improved the  template to include quality and importance indicators. Here are the relevant usage instructions:

*class: Options are FA, A, GA, B, Start, Stub, Dab, Template, Cat, NA. If blank, this will default as Unassessed. Descriptions of the options can be found at quality assessment scale. NA is "not applicable".
*importance: Top, High, Mid, Low, No. If blank, this will default as Unknown priority. Descriptions of the options can be found at importance assessment scale.
I borrowed this code and these instructions from . They are used in many projects already. So, feel free to start adding the missing information. At some point we should get to writing our own quality assessment scale for this project with example pages from within the project's scope. ZeroOne 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality and importance indicator

message: ==Chess persons==
In a discussion with User:Bubba73, we defined raw criteria for assessing importance to chess personalities. Because it can be of broader interest, I post the (slightly enhanced) suggestion here:
* Top: Classical WCHs, their "great predecessors" (Morphy, Anderssen, Philidor...) plus perhaps a few other personalities of comparable importance for chess. In total about 25 people.
* High: People who were just about the top, but not High importance (people who played for championship but lost, FIDE WCHs, people who were 1st or 2nd in Elo lists for a longer time) - examples are Keres, Korchnoi, Topalov...; further Women WCHs, significant correspondence WCC, top chess composers, top theoreticians (Réti, Nimzowitsch...). 
*Mid: Generally people who were in the top ten for some time, leading players who won important tournaments, key chess organizers (FIDE Presidents and similar), Normal correspondence WCC etc.; people who gave their name to important openings or to other important chess topics. 
*Low: The rest.
There will be always borderline cases, but I hope that this can solve many controversies. Ioannes Pragensis 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Chess national championships has many articles that haven't been ranked by importance. Also unclear seems to be whether the articles can be classified as list-class or whether they should be something more. I think it is obvious that the articles need some background and context in addition to the list of champions. If there is only the list I'd classify the article as a stub. However, I'm not sure what to do with the importance ratings. Maybe rank all nations as equals and rate the articles as, say, mid-importance? Then again honestly I don't know if the Chilean Chess Championship is as important an article as, say, the Russian Chess Championship. But how to form some guidelines?
(The same problem applies to national chess organizations.) ZeroOne 23:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance assessment

message: In a discussion with User:Bubba73, we defined raw criteria for assessing importance to chess personalities. Because it can be of broader interest, I post the (slightly enhanced) suggestion here:
* Top: Classical WCHs, their "great predecessors" (Morphy, Anderssen, Philidor...) plus perhaps a few other personalities of comparable importance for chess. In total about 25 people.
* High: People who were just about the top, but not High importance (people who played for championship but lost, FIDE WCHs, people who were 1st or 2nd in Elo lists for a longer time) - examples are Keres, Korchnoi, Topalov...; further Women WCHs, significant correspondence WCC, top chess composers, top theoreticians (Réti, Nimzowitsch...). 
*Mid: Generally people who were in the top ten for some time, leading players who won important tournaments, key chess organizers (FIDE Presidents and similar), Normal correspondence WCC etc.; people who gave their name to important openings or to other important chess topics. 
*Low: The rest.
There will be always borderline cases, but I hope that this can solve many controversies. Ioannes Pragensis 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chess persons

message: What about the importance of chess openings? I don't think any should be in Top level. At one point I was thinking that all openings with their own chapter in MCO should be High level. I also thought that they may need to be divided by the number of ECO codes they have.
But roughly I've been thinking that Ruy Lopez, Petrov, Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Pirc, QCD, QGA, Slav, KID, Nimzo-Indian, Grunfeld, and English should be top importance. (Perhaps a few others.) The rest that have chapters in MCO would be Mid importance, and the rest would be Low. (Or it could go by number of ECO codes.) How about something like that?  Bubba73 13:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chess openings

message: :Category:Chess national championships has many articles that haven't been ranked by importance. Also unclear seems to be whether the articles can be classified as list-class or whether they should be something more. I think it is obvious that the articles need some background and context in addition to the list of champions. If there is only the list I'd classify the article as a stub. However, I'm not sure what to do with the importance ratings. Maybe rank all nations as equals and rate the articles as, say, mid-importance? Then again honestly I don't know if the Chilean Chess Championship is as important an article as, say, the Russian Chess Championship. But how to form some guidelines?
(The same problem applies to national chess organizations.) ZeroOne 23:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance rating of national championships