Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Magnus Carlsen/1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Uncited material and bloating remains. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
The article has become bloated, with many minor events added to the article and too much detail of games and events. This causes the article to be WP:TOOBIG and efforts to spin out text or remove unnecessary prose have stalled. The article also has some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Bloat and article size are not among the GA criteria. An article can be WP:TOOBIG and still be a good article, and quite a number of articles meet this description. Bloat and article size are entirely irrelevant to GAR.
- That leaves uncited text. I would be happy to work on this. As a courtesy, can you give us an idea of where you have found this, so that we don't overlook something? Bruce leverett (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have added citation needed templates, per requested above. In regards to article size, good article criteria 1a states that "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct". I do not think the prose can be concise if the article is this large and bloated. I suggest as a starting point that "Notable games" be removed as, unless a source has declared these games to be notable, this section is original research as Wikipedia cannot make this declaration on its own. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing I have read in Wikipedia policy would lead me to your conclusion that the article must be smaller to conform to criterion 1a.
- Regarding Notable games, there was a lengthy discussion about that in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 34#'Notable games' inclusion criteria. I would ask you to read that discussion. I am not satisfied with the present Notable Games section of Magnus Carlsen, but again, this is separate from the GA criteria, and should be sddressed as a separate subproject.
- Thanks for adding the CN templates, I and perhaps other chess regulars can tackle those. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Bruce leverett: The guideline WP:AS state "While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness." Earth, one of Wikipdia's featured articles, is a great example of summarising a large topic and spinning out notable prose. I also invite other editors to comment on if the Carlsen article, with the prose currently in the article, adheres to GA? 1a. Z1720 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think the issue is more the WP:PROSELINE feel of the year by year sections. There we have a clear violation not so much of 1a, but of 3b, which tells us to use summary style and to avoid too much detail. For an example from a different type of competition, the Roger Federer article is much better at explaining what was important in a given year and relegates the excessive detail to appropriate subarticles. (I personally think it should be more concise, but it is a lot better than the Carlsen article). —Kusma (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is splitting the year by year sections of Carlsen's career to separate articles like "2025 Magnus Carlsen chess season" what's being suggested here? As far as I can tell, the durations of the annual ATP Tours are used to define an official "season" in tennis. I suppose the chess equivalent to this would be the FIDE Circuit, but that has only existed since 2023, so it might not be clear how exactly to define chess seasons. 9ninety (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think the issue is more the WP:PROSELINE feel of the year by year sections. There we have a clear violation not so much of 1a, but of 3b, which tells us to use summary style and to avoid too much detail. For an example from a different type of competition, the Roger Federer article is much better at explaining what was important in a given year and relegates the excessive detail to appropriate subarticles. (I personally think it should be more concise, but it is a lot better than the Carlsen article). —Kusma (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- @9ninety: Splitting the prose out into new articles might be a solution, but the new articles have to meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements on their own. Another solution is to remove non-notable prose from the biography, as Carlsen's appearance at every tournament and his actions in each round of the tournament does not need to be described in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Some of the sections (like 2017 which contains no less than 11 paragraphs) are quite long and go in depth into the details of each tournament he played. This could easily be trimmed down to 2 or 3 paragraphs going over the main results and other events or controversies he's involved in, and then the rest of the detail can be covered in a dedicated article.
- Another reason I'll be supportive of splitting is the results tables, which aren't very easy to navigate due to their length; it requires a decent amount of scrolling just to get to his most recent results in 2025. This table could benefit from being split into the respective sub articles. Splitting might also help avoid some proseline issues. 9ninety (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- I do not care whether the detailed results appear elsewhere, but they should not be in this article. So I do not have an opinion on "splitting" as such, but certainly cutting 80% of the year by year sections from this article would help. —Kusma (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- @9ninety: Splitting the prose out into new articles might be a solution, but the new articles have to meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements on their own. Another solution is to remove non-notable prose from the biography, as Carlsen's appearance at every tournament and his actions in each round of the tournament does not need to be described in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Bruce leverett: The guideline WP:AS state "While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness." Earth, one of Wikipdia's featured articles, is a great example of summarising a large topic and spinning out notable prose. I also invite other editors to comment on if the Carlsen article, with the prose currently in the article, adheres to GA? 1a. Z1720 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have added citation needed templates, per requested above. In regards to article size, good article criteria 1a states that "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct". I do not think the prose can be concise if the article is this large and bloated. I suggest as a starting point that "Notable games" be removed as, unless a source has declared these games to be notable, this section is original research as Wikipedia cannot make this declaration on its own. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delist. Work seems to have stalled, uncited statements remain, and the article remains too detailed. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.