Talk:Matthias Blübaum

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Matthias Blübaum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 04:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments and criticisms I have looked the article over and I do have a few concerns:

1. My main concern is that this article is broken into a large number of really short, one-or-two-sentence paragraphs, which is not a very good organization plan. I think the article would be much improved if these short paragraphs were combined into longer paragraphs of roughly even length.
2. I realize that Matthias Blübaum is only twenty years old and that the article may fill out more as he grows older and more is written about him, but the last two sections of the article are extremely short. The "Honours" section is only one sentence and the "Personal life" section is only two sentences. Really short sections like these are a bit of a pet peeve of mine because they always make it seem as though there is either more that needs to be said on topic or the author is placing undue emphasis on a minor aspect of the subject that does not really need its own section. It might be better if you could expand these sections or possibly reorganize the article to make the sections less short. This is largely a sub-criticism of my first concern.

I may have more comments later, but this all I have right now. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the last two sections are very short. There has not been much coverage of Blübaum outside standard reports of his tournament results and he is a 20-year-old chess player / university student without an extraordinary background so there is not much to be said in the first place. Anyway, I have merged the sections. The previous structure was mostly from a template of other chess biographies. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you have taken care of my second criticism, but I was wondering if you were working on my first? I think that many of the micro-paragraphs can probably be combined into full paragraphs. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have combined the early chess career information with the 2015 sub-section. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I believe I have now resolved your concerns. Is there anything else? Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, I think the article ought to have more information in it, but, since its subject is presently only twenty years old and does not seem to have been widely reported on by major news outlets, I am not convinced that such information would be publicly available at the present time. I will go ahead and pass this article because I think it meets the criteria. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·