Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Bughouse Chess

Self-nominate one could say, currently B-class. This article is well referenced, has relevant images and I believe is clearly written. I don't think anything major is missing. I also had it reread by an expert bughouse player (2400+ on FICS) and ran it through auto-peerreviewer. Voorlandt 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. The article was in much worse shape a few months ago. I especially like the animated sample game. IanOsgood 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I ran the article through an automatic peer-review and it found no problem. It looks one of the best chess articles I have seen, certainly better than some other ones nominated for A-class test. I still have the following remarks (a tad mean, I agree):

• there seem to be a broken link to BabasChess
  • At some point there was an article on Babaschess, however I don't think one red link is problematic (see my view User:Voorlandt) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• it would be nice to have a footnote for the origin of the name "Bughouse"
  • It actually says in the second paragraph of the lead Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the sentence "Bughouse chess seems to have developed early 1960s independently in different places" seems to be the only "History" section, which is a bit too light.
  • This is a weak point of the article and I am not sure how to improve this. I tried hard to find other sources but failed. The closest I got was an email from the editor of the bughouse newsletter (1992-1994) by Jeremy Graham who could confirm this estimate from memory. I now added a few words acknowledging the fact that little is known (so readers don't feel like information is being held back) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the article says that bughouse is the normal chess rules plus some special rules, but there is no link to "normal chess rules" (maybe in the "See also" section ?).
  • if you click on chess on that line, it actually redirects to the chess rules Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the sentence "Dropped pawns may promote, but convert back to pawns when captured" may be expanded, as I do not see how it can work in practice (OK, I have never played bughouse). Do you place a queen on the board or do you let the pawn ? In both cases, how do you remember what it is ?
  • This was quite unclear indeed, I added an extra line explaining it. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• is there a way to make a direct link to "clock move", instead of the slightly less direct link to List_of_chess_terms#C ?
  • I don't think so, but maybe someone else knows. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the "Variations" section briefly indicates that bughouse may be played by mail, but it should be mentioned in the main section first.
  • Do you mean the lead? If so, I don't think it is important enough to be mentioned there, since play by mail is not that common.
• the "over the board" section repeats that "Bughouse seems to have developed early 1960s", which is already told in the main section.
  • Removed it from the lead. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• would it be possible to add a few "bughouse champions" who are NOT also "normal chess" champions ?
  • Thanks a lot for encouraging this, I added the most important ones (with ref) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• references do not seem to be sorted.
  • I think they are, but maybe missing something (Manson, Penn, Pritchard, Zimmerman). Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, a great article that deserves a A-class! SyG 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reading it so thoroughly!, your review was really useful and I think it improved the article Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put this article as GA-class, waiting for a third positive review before passing it as A-class. Anyone? SyG 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

'Support' I'm impressed with this - I'm a huge chess fan but had never heard of bughouse until I saw the article - well referenced, informative, etc. Some sections do need more depth really, but considering it's not hugely well known the lack of information is understandable. Obviously to get to FA it will need more in these areas, but I'd put it as A-class. Oh, and I've just corrected half a dozen grammar/phrasing errors in the openings paragraph, which now reads much better. Addyboy 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for going through it! I rewritten the openings section after a few comments from friends, but obviously without rereading it properly. Which sections do you think need expanding? I think the main material is there, except for the history, for which unfortunately very little information is available. Voorlandt 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Close the review Finally a third support has arrived, thanks to Addyboy! As no major remarks seem pending and no one has opposed, I shall close this review and assess as A-class. Applause to Voorlandt for having improved this article so much in the past months. Next step is FAC, I guess! SyG 14:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)