Talk:Wesley So wins TATA Steel Chess

Review of revision 4284449 [Passed]

Revision 4284449 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I truly do not mind that this review didn't go smoothly, because it's a first attempt at this sort of article, but what I learned from this first attempt is that if we're going to do a similar chess article in figure, we need to do better on sourcing. I (if it's me reviewing) need better help on how to find stuff in the sources, and help with how to understand it when I find it. Some problems with where things were led me to view a lot of video just on the off chance it might contain something I was looking for. Some descriptions of strategic situations I had a horrendous time comparing to the info available because I'm not a chess player (I pretty much know the rules, and for literally one day long ago I moved up to a state where I could look at a game and see the potentialities), which also led me to view a lot of video, much of it the same video over and over trying to extract barely-grasped information from it. Okay, I think there was a single moment in the game where he was ahead by two pawns. It felt less confusing to leave the margin of material advantage out of it. Some things I never did find. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4284449 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I truly do not mind that this review didn't go smoothly, because it's a first attempt at this sort of article, but what I learned from this first attempt is that if we're going to do a similar chess article in figure, we need to do better on sourcing. I (if it's me reviewing) need better help on how to find stuff in the sources, and help with how to understand it when I find it. Some problems with where things were led me to view a lot of video just on the off chance it might contain something I was looking for. Some descriptions of strategic situations I had a horrendous time comparing to the info available because I'm not a chess player (I pretty much know the rules, and for literally one day long ago I moved up to a state where I could look at a game and see the potentialities), which also led me to view a lot of video, much of it the same video over and over trying to extract barely-grasped information from it. Okay, I think there was a single moment in the game where he was ahead by two pawns. It felt less confusing to leave the margin of material advantage out of it. Some things I never did find. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.