Talk:Garry Kasparov/GA2

"Good article" nomination

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

Reviewer: Billsmith60 (talk · contribs) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 1, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Verifiable?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

(I edit on my phone and apologise for not being clued into various assessment templates. Still, my findings below are numbered for easy checking off).

1. Well written?: FAIL 2. Factually accurate?: FAIL 3. Broad in coverage?: PASS 4. Neutral point of view?: FAIL 5. Article stability?: PASS 6. Images?: PASS

PREAMBLE The recommendations made by the assessor in June 2021 regarding writing style have been largely attended to. However, this article does not pass GA review, primarily for the structural, presentational and referencing issues noted below. These are not onerous and will see the article move much closer to GA status, since there is little it is lacking.

That’s everything for now. I’m willing to do a once run-through copyedit if/when the article is closer to passing GA. All the best Billsmith60 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICS 1. Document template: set language to British English, as that’s what is used.

Short description: 'and political activist'? Why not ‘writer’ too?

2. Lead I am not insisting on this, but do you need ‘and commentator’ given he’s an “active” activist?

Explain ‘peak rating”: rated by whom?

‘he devoted’ --> ‘he has devoted’

‘he had lived in New York’ -->

‘he lived’

‘a Security Ambassador’ -->lowercase

3. ‘Early life and career’ is followed by ‘Career’. Revise these main headings to (e.g.) ‘Early life and introduction to chess’ and ‘Chess career’

Move the last two paragraphs of ‘Early life’ (‘He first qualified...’) to be the start of ‘Chess career’

Change heading ‘Towards the top’ to ‘Rising up the ranks’

Para. 2: ‘Various political manoeuvres...’: citation?

4. 1984 WC: para. 3 ’The termination was controversial as...’ – citation?

From the split from FIDE onwards, change ‘his title’ or ‘the title’ to ‘his PCA title’ or “the PCA title’

5. ‘Losing [the] title’: para. 3, ‘remained the top player in the world...’ – if you mean according to the PCA list (as FIDE had removed him from theirs), then say so.

para. 5, first sentence, first clause (‘Because of Kasparov’s... public eye’): unsupported POV.

Section also needs another reference before fn 79.

Last sentence of section: revise ‘to regain the WC title’ to ‘..become undisputed World Champion once more’.

6. ‘Retirement from chess’ and ‘Post-retirement chess’ headings are contradictory, as the second is quite detailed: revise these headings carefully.

Also, revise ‘Return from retirement’ heading in light of the above points.

7. The ‘Politics’ section is *very dense and would benefit from more lower-level headings, e.g. ‘Presidential candidate'.

Add a subheading ‘Croatian citizenship’ before that paragraph and make it the last paragraph of that section.

Also, there is no reason for a separate main heading ‘Political views’. Move it to ‘Politics’ and change that headings to ‘Politics and political views’.

It should also become thematic, i.e. with subheadings ‘Russia’, ‘Armenia’, ‘Ethnic conflicts’, etc. Alternatively, as the majority of his views and activities relate to Russia, other countries could be treated in one headings.

What I’m getting at is the need for the “political” section to be structured much better.

8. Computers and chess: citation for players intervening in contravention of the rules?

9. ‘Playing style’: should be part of an ‘Assessment’ and/or “Legacy’ section, which should be larger.

10. References: while these need not be formatted perfectly some are very messy. See for instance fn 2. There is no reason why it shouldn’t appear like nos 3 or 4.

Fn 256 and 257 are poorly formed. Further, the title ‘Robot or human?’ is incorrect, as link goes to a Kasparov book instead.

My strong recommendation is to go through all citations, tighten them up and remove any that do not support the assertions made in the text.

Good Article Criteria: ignore template

Please ignore the six "passes" shown in the criteria: I apologise for inserting that template in error. That part is incorrect. See the findings below it to see what needs attended to in three of the six criteria. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 1, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: FAIL 2. Verifiable?: FAIL 3. Broad in coverage?: PASS 4. Neutral point of view?: FAIL 5. Stable?: PASS 6. Images?: PASS

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

(I edit on my phone and apologise for not being clued into various assessment templates. Still, my findings below are numbered for easy checking off).

1. Well written?: FAIL 2. Factually accurate?: FAIL 3. Broad in coverage?: PASS 4. Neutral point of view?: FAIL 5. Article stability?: PASS 6. Images?: PASS

PREAMBLE The recommendations made by the assessor in June 2021 regarding writing style have been largely attended to. However, this article does not pass GA review, primarily for the structural, presentational and referencing issues noted below. These are not onerous and will see the article move much closer to GA status, since there is little it is lacking.

That’s everything for now. I’m willing to do a once run-through copyedit if/when the article is closer to passing GA. All the best Billsmith60 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICS 1. Document template: set language to British English, as that’s what is used.

Short description: 'and political activist'? Why not ‘writer’ too?

2. Lead I am not insisting on this, but do you need ‘and commentator’ given he’s an “active” activist?

Explain ‘peak rating”: rated by whom?

‘he devoted’ --> ‘he has devoted’

‘he had lived in New York’ -->

‘he lived’

‘a Security Ambassador’ -->lowercase

3. ‘Early life and career’ is followed by ‘Career’. Revise these main headings to (e.g.) ‘Early life and introduction to chess’ and ‘Chess career’

Move the last two paragraphs of ‘Early life’ (‘He first qualified...’) to be the start of ‘Chess career’

Change heading ‘Towards the top’ to ‘Rising up the ranks’

Para. 2: ‘Various political manoeuvres...’: citation?

4. 1984 WC: para. 3 ’The termination was controversial as...’ – citation?

From the split from FIDE onwards, change ‘his title’ or ‘the title’ to ‘his PCA title’ or “the PCA title’

5. ‘Losing [the] title’: para. 3, ‘remained the top player in the world...’ – if you mean according to the PCA list (as FIDE had removed him from theirs), then say so.

para. 5, first sentence, first clause (‘Because of Kasparov’s... public eye’): unsupported POV.

Section also needs another reference before fn 79.

Last sentence of section: revise ‘to regain the WC title’ to ‘..become undisputed World Champion once more’.

6. ‘Retirement from chess’ and ‘Post-retirement chess’ headings are contradictory, as the second is quite detailed: revise these headings carefully.

Also, revise ‘Return from retirement’ heading in light of the above points.

7. The ‘Politics’ section is *very dense and would benefit from more lower-level headings, e.g. ‘Presidential candidate'.

Add a subheading ‘Croatian citizenship’ before that paragraph and make it the last paragraph of that section.

Also, there is no reason for a separate main heading ‘Political views’. Move it to ‘Politics’ and change that headings to ‘Politics and political views’.

It should also become thematic, i.e. with subheadings ‘Russia’, ‘Armenia’, ‘Ethnic conflicts’, etc. Alternatively, as the majority of his views and activities relate to Russia, other countries could be treated in one headings.

What I’m getting at is the need for the “political” section to be structured much better.

8. Computers and chess: citation for players intervening in contravention of the rules?

9. ‘Playing style’: should be part of an ‘Assessment’ and/or “Legacy’ section, which should be larger.

10. References: while these need not be formatted perfectly some are very messy. See for instance fn 2. There is no reason why it shouldn’t appear like nos 3 or 4.

Fn 256 and 257 are poorly formed. Further, the title ‘Robot or human?’ is incorrect, as link goes to a Kasparov book instead.

My strong recommendation is to go through all citations, tighten them up and remove any that do not support the assertions made in the text. Billsmith60 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 I have made improvements up to the 7th point and will finish the rest in the coming days. I'm not sure if you intended to fail the GA already or not (you left me talk page messages that it is both failed and on hold), but officially it is still open, so I hope you will allow some time to make these changes. --Dallavid (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I see you've started your improvement drive. Certainly, I'll keep the review open until it's complete. My conflicting notifications of first "fail" then "on review" were on account of my using the various assessment templates incorrectly! Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 All of the improvements should be complete now. Are you sure it is necessary to explain "Peak rating"? I haven't seen any other chess biographies that do this, not even good articles like Magnus Carlsen. The reader can always click the link if they want to learn more about the Elo system. And do you like how I rearranged a "Politics and political views" section? --Dallavid (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I see you’ve done sterling work to date. Please see below for my second set of observations, which will bring the article much closer to GA status. For your reply, please mark each correction or change as done or to be done or whatever, so I can check quickly. Thanks! It’ll be Monday evening before I get back to this in any meaningful way.

(a) Lead

‘peak rating”: rated by whom?’: ‘BY WHOM’ NOT ADRESSED (FIDE!)

Done.

(b) Heading ‘Career’: change to ‘Chess career’

Done.

(c) ‘The split and PCA title’: in reverting an edit, user Bruce leveret has noted that the PCA existed from 1993-96 only. He has also noted this background: “From 1993 to 2006, first the PCA and then a company called Braingames organized their own world championships, while FIDE continued to organize its own, which was less prestigious [his opinion] because it didn't have Kasparov. In 2006 the title was "unified" (see World Chess Championship 2006)”. Hence, you need to revise the text to that period accordingly to ensure the terminology regarding the two titles and versions of the world championship are referred to consistently.

I am confused/unsure of what to call the world title in these scenarios. I don't think it would be right to call it "FIDE title" because the title has a long history before FIDE existed, as the World Chess Championship article shows. I also noticed the Carlsen and Fischer often just refer to it as "title", and those are both Good Articles.

(d) You changed ‘various political manoeuvres’ to ‘’…the threat of a boycott from the Soviets)’: CITATION NEEDED

Done.

(e) ‘Losing [th] title..’: WHAT TITLE?

See C.

(f) Also, para. 3, ‘remained the top player in the world...’ – if you mean according to the PCA list (as FIDE had removed him from theirs), then say so. NOT DONE

Done.

(g) ‘Because of Kasparov's continuing strong results and status as world No. 1’: ACCORDING TO WHOM?

FIDE, and done.

(h) ‘Computers and chess: citation for players intervening in contravention of the rules? NOT DONE

The Gimbel citation is the source.

(i) Heading ‘Retirement from regular chess’: change to ‘Retirement from serious competitive chess’

I wrote regular competitive chess because seriousness is subjective. Thoughts?

(j) Images

- remove the picture of Kasparov with Sting: I can see no reason in the text for it to appear there, and that section is already illustrated.

- right align the other two pics that appear on the left of the article.

Done.

(k) Russia: there is so much about Russia that it’ll need broken up a little more, with perhaps at least one more subheading. If you have to, you could use something like ‘Early political activities’, then keep ‘presidential candidate’ and split the rest with one more subheading (maybe ‘Continued opposition to Putin’ or ‘Opposition in Putin’s [second/third? Term as president’, etc,?]

- also, find an image to break up the large chunks of text in the current ‘Opposition to Putin’ section. + right align it.

Done.

(l) Structure

That ‘Politics’ section interrupts the chess part, so move it down as part of the following improved layout

1. Early life

2. Chess career

3. Olympiads…

4. Chess and computers

5. Achievements and Legacy (to comprise what’s currently in ‘Assessment’ and ‘Records and achievement but to answer the question: ‘why is this fellow so important’?

6. Politics

7. Books and other publications (note the new title)

9. Personal life

11. Refs

Done.

Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 Essentially all of the improvements have been made and I have added notes for each of them. --Dallavid (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you for the improvements to date. I've gone through much of the text in detail now, as per below, and have updated the list of changes needed.

1. Lead

Swap “writer and political activist” to match the short description.

“when he lost to the IBM…” --> “when he was defeated by the IBM…” (to avoid overuse of “lose”)

“when he retired from professional chess in 2005” --> “when he retired from regular competitive chess in 2005”

“and joined as a member of”: unclear, as The One Russia was the umbrella coalition body. Revise to “was a member of”

“he obtained Croatian citizenship, and”: delete comma

2. Introduction to chess

“When Garry was seven years old, his father died of leukemia.[28] At the age of twelve, Garry” --> “When he was seven years old, his father died of leukemia.[28] At the age of twelve, Kasparov”

“and, at 10 began” --> “and, at 10, began”

“He had been invited as an exception” --> “He had received a special invitation to enter the tournament”

3. Rising up the ranks

“Starting with oversight by the Russian Chess Federation,“: unclear. Do you mean something like “Thanks to the RCF securing him a place,”?

“travel to the United States, preventing Kasparov from playing Korchnoi, who won the match by default.” The clause in parenthesis is unnecessary. Revise to “States, meaning that Korchnoi could have had a walkover.”

“This was resolved by Korchnoi allowing the match to be replayed in London,” This is not totally accurate. See The Guardian article on how public/chess opinion, and (yes) Korchnoi himself, led to the match taking place in London. But avoid “replayed”, as the original did not take place. Start your amended text with “This problem was resolved by…”

“in January 1996; the record is currently held by Magnus Carlsen”: delete the Carlsen bit.

4. 1984 WC

“had many ups and downs, and a very controversial finish”: delete comma

“some relatively short, and others drawn “: delete “and”

“by Florencio Campomanes, the President of the Fédération Internationale des Échecs (FIDE),” --> “by FIDE President FC”

“34 games, the match of José Raúl Capablanca vs. Alexander Alekhine in 1927” --> “34 games (José Raúl Capablanca vs. Alexander Alekhine in 1927)”

“According to grandmasters Boris Gulko and Korchnoi and historians Vladimir Popow and Yuri Felshtinsky in their The KGB Plays Chess book”: This could read as if all four wrote the book, so put a comma after “Korchnoi”. Are the views of Gulko and Korchnoi covered by note 50 from ChessBase?

5. World Champion  World champion

“World Champion and breaking the record held by Mikhail Tal “ --> “WC, a record held by…”

“recognized as one of the all-time masterpieces in chess history” --> “recognized as one of the all-time chess masterpieces” chapter Stab in the Back  ‘chapter “Stab in the Back”

“lead at any time during the contest” --> “lead at any time”

“Kasparov had 21 wins, 19 losses, and 104 draws”: delete comma before “and”

6. Break with FIDE

“With the World Champion title in hand”: delete. Revise to “Kasparov now began opposing FIDE”.

“(GMA), an organization to represent “ --> “(GMA) to represent”

“uneasy relationship to develop between him and FIDE” --> ”uneasy relationship to develop between Kasparov and FIDE”

“cycle for Kasparov's next World Championship defence:” --> ”cycle:”

“who had defeated Anatoly Karpov” --> “who had defeated Karpov”

“decided to play outside FIDE's jurisdiction, under another organization,…”. Part of a long, awkward sentence. Revise to “jurisdiction. Their match took place under the auspices of the Professional Chess Association (PCA), an organization established by Kasparov.”

“a great fracture occurred” --> “a fracture occurred” --> “Meanwhile, FIDE organized a World Championship match between” --> “Meanwhile, FIDE organized its World Championship match between”

“…Short from the FIDE rating lists.” --> “Short from its rating list.”

“Until this [removal of Kasparov and Short] happened, there was [--> had been] a parallel rating list presented by PCA which featured all the world top players regardless of their relation to FIDE”: unclear. The split occurred in 1993, after the PCA was formed, so should this read: “Subsequently, the PCA created a rating list of its own, which featured all the world top players regardless of their relation to FIDE”? If so, who else had left FIDE but might be on the PCA list [Kramnik, etc,?] ? You might consider deleting that sentence altogether, otherwise revise it carefully.

“the World Chess Association (WCA) with” --> “the World Chess Association (WCA), with”

“This left Kasparov stranded, and yet another organization stepped in: BrainGames.com, headed by Raymond Keene.“ Not helpful. Delete “This left Kasparov stranded,”. If I have the flow correct (please check), consider perhaps: “After a match with Shirov could not be agreed by BrainGames.com, an organization headed by Raymond Keene, and talks with Anand had collapsed, a match was instead arranged against Kramnik.”

7. Losing the title

“1995 match against Viswanathan Anand” --> “1995 match against Anand”

“although Kasparov held the draw in both games” --> “although Kasparov managed a draw in both games”

“After losing the title, Kasparov won a series of major tournaments, and remained… “ --> “Kasparov won a series of major tournaments and remained…”

“Kramnik and the FIDE World Champions” --> “Kramnik and the FIDE World Champion”.

“City. Karpov surprised the experts and emerged victorious, winning two games and drawing one”: four-game match? As this is Kasparov’s article. Revise: “City. Kasparov suffered a surprise loss (1.5 – 2.5)”

“and so had decided to stop all efforts” --> “and had decided to stop all efforts”

8. Retirement from regular…

“(he commented when winning the Russian championship in 2004 that it had been the last major title he had never won outright) and expressed frustration at the failure to reunify the world championship.” No reason for this to be in parenthesis, so make it into a sentence.

Delete all multiple occurrences of chess players’ first names in this section.

“legendary encounter” --> “unfinished encounter”

“however, in fact, no” --> “however, no”

9. Candidacy for president

“Kasparov's candidacy was supported by his former student, reigning World Chess Champion and FIDE#1 ranked player “  “He was supported by reigning World Champion Carlsen”.

“incumbent FIDE president” --> “the incumbent,”

10. Return from chess retirement

“blitz, finishing eighth out of ten participants, which included”: long, awkward sentence --> “blitz. He finished eighth in a strong field of 10, including”

“Anand, and the eventual” --> “Anand and the eventual”

“Any tournament money that he earned would go towards charities to promote chess in Africa.” --> “Kasparov promised that any tournament money he earned…”

“interviews, and playing zones,” --> “interviews and playing zones,”

11. Chess and Computers

This section suffers from the chronology by rote problem referred to in the Politics section below. There are too many bitty sentences that are not part of any thematic approach, e.g. “Several commercially available Kasparov computers were made in the 1980s, the Saitek Kasparov Turbo King models”.

Chronology is important, but revise this section to mix it up a bit and avoid too many sentences beginning with, e.g. “In 2013,…”

“In 1983, Acorn Computers acted as one of the sponsors for Kasparov's Candidates semi-final match against Viktor Korchnoi”: revise to say why impt (evidence of the growing potential of computer chess? Otherwise delete it).

“albeit with some difficulty”: delete.

“In December 1992, Kasparov visited Frederic Friedel in his hotel room in Cologne…”: so what? Why is the hotel relevant? If you retain it, unlink Friedel.

First two paragraphs of the Deep Blue bit should be combined.

Combine the two Deep Junior paragraphs.

“important moments in his career; the top four NFTs sold for $14,342, $14,342, $11,439 and $11,439.” --> “The top four sold for more than $11,000”.

12. See Also section: move it to the very end (after “External Links”)

13. References

No. 2: fix the mal-formed citation an Administrator added recently

14. Politics section (in particular)

While I am not bound by any previous GA assessment, I do subscribe to the view of the previous assessor that this section (in particular) is weakened by appearing simply to be a chronological list of things that took place and Kasparov’s role in them. There is an absence of a thematic approach noted above under Chess and computers. While stand-alone sentences have disappeared and the headings are much improved, I think you could improve the flow and coherence of that section by *not starting with, e.g. “In 2013, Kasparov..” Dates are important, but they can appear in other parts of a sentence, too! But simply moving the first clause in every other paragraph won’t do. This point must be addressed sufficiently without causing too much work.

This section is comprehensive, hence not too far away for a pass.

15. Further, this particular criticism re dates applies throughout the article.

I’ve left the Assessment and Records sections for another day, as there’s plenty to be going on with if this article is to reach GA status, which it certainly can. I see that another editor has removed a paragraph of yours about the "greatest ever". I agree with him.

Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 I have done everything. How does the politics section look? I made more changes to make it appear less like a chronological list, but it is difficult when Kasparov was only a politician for a two-month candidacy, and has otherwise been more of a commentator. --Dallavid (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. Please see below for what I hope will be the last significant edit needing to be made. I’ll do a final copy-edit before it becomes a GA, although it might need very little further work after you’re done. Well done and all the best, Billsmith60 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

“Olympiads and other major team events” -> “Olympiads and major team events”

Chess and computers section

“In 1985, computer chess magazine editor Frederic Friedel invited Kasparov to his house, and the two of them discussed how a chess database program would be useful for preparation”. As asked last time, so what? Why is the hotel room relevant? I see no reason, so revise to: “Computer chess magazine editor Frederic Friedel consulted with Kasparov in 1985 on how a chess database program would be useful preparation for competition; Friedel founded…” – so that the one reference covers the two points.

Assessment

You’ll note serious problems with POV and repetition here! This section is very badly thought out.

“Kasparov led the rating list from 1985 to 2006, with the exception of two short periods: in 1993-1994, FIDE expelled him due to the match with Nigel Short under the auspices of the PCA, and in one of the releases in 1997, he shared first place with Vladimir Kramnik”. -> “With the exception of the PCA period and sharing first place with Vladimir Kramnik in 1997, Kasparov led the rating list from 1985 to 2006”.

“On 1 January 2006, Kasparov ranked first with a coefficient of 2812, but according to FIDE rules, he was excluded from the rating list of 1 April 2006, because he had not participated in tournaments for the previous 12 months.[132]“ -> “On 1 January 2006, Kasparov ranked first with a coefficient of 2812. However, he was excluded from the FIDE rating list of 1 April 2006 because he had not participated in tournaments for the previous 12 months [132]”.

“Kasparov was a versatile chess player who, in the heyday of his talent, had almost no weaknesses”: delete this POV sentence. Replace with “Kramnik called Kasparov a chess player with virtually no weaknesses.[144]“, i.e. move up the Kramnik sentence with ref.

“Alexander Alekhine.[146][147] Alekhine was Kasparov's chess idol since childhood.” -> “Alexander Alekhine,[146][147] Kasparov's chess idol since childhood”

“A great influence on the growth of Kasparov as a chess player were the coaches he had from childhood”  “Other influences on Kasparov were his early coaches” “which determined the development of Kasparov's abilities” : evidence, otherwise delete.

“In tactics and combinational play, the future grandmaster was strong from childhood, positional thinking was formed gradually in the course of duels with the best players in the world”: “childhood,” -> “childhood, while…” More importantly what evidence is there for this bland assertion? If none can be found, delete it.

“Garry Kasparov's contribution to opening theory is widely acknowledged. Many studies were inspired by his series of matches with Karpov, and in the 1990s Kasparov systematically developed new variants with computer programs.” What studies? Evidence for these claims?

“The foundations of work on the debut repertoire were laid at a young age by joint work with Shakarov, who collected and systematized materials, and then became the keeper of Kasparov's information bank.” Evidence for this claim? Also, if it can be supported, why is it here when it should, more properly, appear in “playing style” as it refers to his youth?

“subtle calculation, and original” -> “subtle calculation and original”

“aggressive play in the opening” -> “aggressive play in it”

Records and Achievements

“He was also briefly ejected from the list following his split from FIDE in 1993, but during that time he headed the rating list of the rival PCA.” -> “He headed the PCA rating list during the split from FIDE”.

“Later on in his career, Kasparov went on another long streak of consecutive super-tournament wins” -> “At the end of the 1990s, Kasparov went on another long streak of 10 consecutive super-tournament wins”

“In these 10 consecutive classical super-tournaments wins, Kasparov had a…” -> “In these wins, Kasparov had a…”

“Kasparov won the Chess Oscar a record eleven times.[162]“ Delete this repetition but move up the reference to the very start of the Assessment section to support “Kasparov received a Chess Oscar eleven times as the best chess player of the year in 1982-1983, 1985-1988, 1995-1996, 1999 and 2001-2002”.

Heading “Assessment” -> “Assessment and legacy”

Heading “Chess ratings achievements” -> “Chess rating”

Heading “Other records” -> “Other achievements”

Delete main heading “Records and achievements” but ensure “Chess rating” and “Other achievements” remain as part of “Assessment and legacy” section

Politics

It’s still a little bitty, so let’s make larger paragraphs.

Combine second and third paragraphs into one. Revise “Kasparov was involved” -> “He was also involved” to improve the flow.

Do the same with paragraphs 4 and 5, this time with something like: “Another organization he was instrumental in setting up was The Other Russia…”

Opposition to Putin admin

“no grounds to believe the testimony of the police".[citation needed] Fix this.

And append “Kasparov wrote in February 2013…” to the previous paragraph

Move sentence “In an April 2013 op-ed piece..” up to end of previous paragraph. Also, as the month is the same, “In an April 2013 op-ed piece, K” -> (simply) “He also accused…”

Then add “Further,” and bring up the last sentence “At the 2013…” changing “At” to “at” to follow “Further,”

Opposition from exile

This sentence “Kasparov has spoken out against the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and has stated that control of Crimea should be returned to Ukraine after the overthrow of Putin without additional conditions.[228]”” is important but is stand-alone. Can you relocate it to be part of a different paragraph to avoid it sticking out like a sore thumb?

USA

“and criticized Trump” -> “and criticized him”

“He also criticised the economic policies” -> “He also impugned/disparaged [you choose which] the economic policies” (to avoid overuse of “criticize”)

Other international affairs

As above, make sure there are no stand-alone sentences. You can easily have no more than three paragraphs, remembering to use “and” “further”, “in addition”, etc., to combine sentences.

Other post-retirement writing

The same point holds. This must be revised into two paragraphs for continuity.

Update (22 Feb.): as you're almost finished, note that all images need an alternative text tab. If the caption is ideal, then "|alt=refer to caption" before the closing "]]" is fine. Thats something I've learnt this morning. Thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 Everything should be completed now. Thanks for all of your help! What do you think of the article as it is now? --Dallavid (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll get back to this tomorrow and let you know. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Helo again, I found only the following two issues (in "Assessment")

1. “Kasparov's contribution to opening theory is widely acknowledged”: ‘widely?? Who else other than the Chessbase source (note 153?). If you cannot find any, delete “widely”.

2. “Kasparov's favourite opening systems were the Sicilian and King's Indian.[153“: this source does not mention those openings. Revise.

I've done several edits to tighten up the text and make it consistently British English. I also did a spot check of 20 references, and they are all "present!" If you can fix up these two points, we can go to GA very soon. All the best, Billsmith60 (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've found several weaknesses in the "Writings" section that need addressed Billsmith60 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 The issues should be resolved now. Seems two "Assessment" sources had gotten mixed up while I was revising. --Dallavid (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've replaced that dead link with a new one, and the correct text, covering his preferred openings. Only the 'Early Writings' issues to fix now (as above). Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 I've added the 'Early Writings' citations where they were needed. --Dallavid (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I/we missed one "citation needed" in 'My Great Predecessors', as the sole citation at the end of that paragraph is insufficient regarding the praise, criticism and inaccuracies bit.

Then delete this sentence and citation at the very end of 'Rising up the ranks' (it occurs in 'Politics'): "That year he joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), as a member of which he was elected to the Central Committee of Komsomol in 1987.[44]" When both done, it'll pass GA. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 I could not find a citation for the Predecessors reviews, so I just removed that part. I deleted the Komsomol sentence and added a source for the Candidates' final. --Dallavid (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'll run through this a final time very soon and upgrade it when it's finally ready. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, this article has now been upgraded to GA status. It was quite an effort, in which endeavour I helped out myself once much of the spade work had been done by the nominator.

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Verifiable?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Well done! Billsmith60 (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)