Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xiangqi/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Xiangqi

I'm nominating this article for FAC because this article is a thoroughly-written, comprehensive article. I've been a Xiangqi player for five or six years now, and when I found this browsing through Wikipedia, I was impressed. It gives clear, consise rules, with appropriate pictures and diagrams. In addition, it also gives a good history. Overall, the article is extremely well-done, having gone through a lot of revisions. The article is extremely accurate (considering my xiangqi experience...), and it should be a featured article. Flcelloguy 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. From the article

It has more players than any other board game of the chaturanga family.

Even more than western chess? Do you have any reference for that? Also I think there needs to be a section about the way Xiangqi is played today, what are the major tournaments, and who are the best players. Deepak 21:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Deepak for your suggestions and for pointing out the flaw in the article!
  • The original article had a sentence claiming that Xiangqi was the most popular form of chaturanga. I could find no concrete evidence for this- not a surprise! I doubt that there is a way to count the entire number of players, because of the millions of casual players out there. Also, what defines a player? The closest I could find to upholding that sentence came here [1], and it seemed more like a casual, offhand statement than fact. Thus, I've changed the sentence to say that xiangqi is one of the world's most popular forms of chaturanga, especially in Asia. This seems to be agreed upon.
  • I also added sections on xiangqi today in the U.S., xiangqi worldwide, xiangqi leagues and federations, rankings, and the best players. My source is this for best xiangqi players in the world, and here [2] for how xiangqi is played today (clubs, tournaments, etc.) Thanks!
Flcelloguy 00:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Support Weak object. The lead in should be two or three paragraphs long for an article of this size. Also the inline external links are incorrectly displayed. See wikipedia:Footnote3 style and the India page for an example of its working.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)  =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:52, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks- I'll be fixing it up the next couple of days. :) Flcelloguy 17:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Wragge for fixing up the footnotes/references! That is now taken care of. Flcelloguy 19:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The intro paragraph is now being examined. Please see the ensuing discussion here, we're all working on it! Thanks. Flcelloguy 00:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The ToC are too lopsided; reduce the subheadings.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 13:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nichalp, thanks for your suggestions! However, I believe that the ToC, though with some sub-headings, is pretty clear right now. Is there any policy that I'm unaware of that states there should be less sub-headings? What do others think? Let me know, I'm always open to suggestions! Thanks. Flcelloguy 00:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A heading having a single subheading is considered bad style. I've modified the headings which I didn't like so that it remains invisible in the ToC; this addresses my objections.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:52, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A rare article without any serious copyedit issues at all, clear pictures, and subject coverage which is both comprehensive and accurate. I have moved the references and links to wikipedia:Footnote3 style Wragge 18:23, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Wait. I've brought up a couple of problems in the discussion page that I think need to be sorted out first, namely the mistranslation "Elephant Chess" and the imprecise explanation of the "Movement of the Horse." --Fazdeconta 18:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have responded to Fazdeconta's concerns on the article's talk page, and other people are having input as well. Feel free to offer suggestions or comments! Flcelloguy 20:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Fazdeconta! Upon a second look at the article, he has commented that the wording is clear. Also, it seems like the majority of people support keeping the literal translation of the phrase xiangqi in the article. Again, as always, I'm open to suggestions. Thanks once again! Flcelloguy 00:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support An interesting article which gives thorough and detailed information about chinese chess and its gameplay. Also, this article is without copyedit issues. -- Crucis
  • Support. Full disclosure: I wrote from half to most of the article. —Lowellian (talk) 13:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)