Talk:Alexander Alekhine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Alexander Alekhine has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Discrepancy!

Lisbon or Estoril? The caption and text disagree. DanielCristofani 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blindfold games

He was famous for playing a large number of games blindfolded. 126.210.150.76 22:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA Pronunciation

Ok, this is my first time creating an IPA pronunciation, so let me try on the talk page first... Александр Александрович Алéхин.. well first of all, it's Алёхин, not Алéхин.

(IPA: [alʲɛk'sandr alʲɛk'sandrovʲiʨ a'lʲoxin] ).

That looks good. I'll add it to the article. However, I just referred to the article on Russian phonology to pick the right IPA sounds to mimic the Russian pronunciation of his name, so IPA experts are more than welcome to correct any IPA faux pas. CasualFighter 16:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not Алёхин, but Алéхин. Please consult the russian version [1]. ("произносится через «е», а не через «ё»") If you want to know why Alekhine wanted to be spelled with -ye- and not -yo- take a look here: [2], where Hans Kmoch says "While reading those articles, I remembered that Alekhine used to get angry if his name was pronounced Al-YOH-khin, the way Russians sometimes pronounced it. The correct Russian pronunciation, he said, was Al-YEH-khin, explaining that the name was derived from that of a tree (*alyesha*) that grew abundantly near one of his family's estates. "Al-YOH-khin," he claimed, was a Yiddish distortion of his name, like Trotsky for Troitsky or Feigl for the German Vogel." Miastko 19:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
So it is Алéхин! Funny, it turns out I mispronounced it for years. Well, that's the advantage of working on wikipedia - you learn something new every day... It's surprising that he blamed Yiddish speakers for distortions in his name, though. Most Russian speakers (me included) would think that it's derived from the name Алёша. Thank you for correcting me! CasualFighter 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, Alekhine was a known Anti-Semite. Best regards, Miastko
I think it's highly likely that the name was, in fact, Алёхин (from Алёша). The derivation from алéша sounds to me like a fabrication to justify the allegation of "Yiddish distortion" of his name. Алёхин ("Al-YO-khin") is the only Russian pronuncation I've ever heard. Dodiad
"МОЯ ФАМИЛИЯ, БАТЮШКА, АЛЕХИН, А НЕ ОЛЁХИН" - if you know Russian, please take a look at this: [3] Miastko 20:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Controversy

Someone who knows more about this should expand this section. If these papers were published under his name, the presumption is that he wrote them. However, the authors of the section seem to imply a heavy bias that there is a dispute. Did Alekhine deny having written the articles? If so, is there evidence that would suggest that we should believe him -- I imagine there would be, but this should be demonstrated.

"However, there is no record of Alekhine having ever denied the authorship of the articles, even after the War. On the other hand, the very controversy is widely recognized as tainted by post-war political preconceptions, and thus became obsolete." Obsolete? Surely a wrong use of the word. Does anyone object to my removing the phrase 'and thus became obsolete'?

AllenHansen (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Telegram

Some sections of this article look like a telegram more than an encyclopedia article, such as "Approaching the top level". That section just states "<insert date>, [alekhine] won <insert tournament>". Is this considered correct? --Taraborn 10:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think they (summary sentences for section headings) work well for an encyclopedia article. I might try to make some more appropriate headings (and probably a few less - 24 is too much). Peter Ballard 12:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Matter of Life and Death

The chess book brandished by Marius Goring is named aloud by him, as by Philidor, the 18th century French master.

I don't recall Alekhine's book(s) appearing. I believe those were published in 1948, two years after the film came out.

Bandalore 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-class

This article is currently being assessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Review, please join the discussion. Voorlandt 07:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the review and the article has failed its test for A-class. Now it is assessed as GA-class. You can find the reasons and hints for improvement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review SyG 10:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see the archived discussion hereunder: SyG (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retitle "Contributions" to "Assessment"?

I suggest retitling "Contributions" to "Assessment" so that this section can cover: his playing style and peak strength; his writings; possibly the point that his relative weakness in the mid- to late 1930s paved the way for the FIDE World Championship system of the 1950s and 1960s (Candidates' tournament modelled on 1938 AVRO tournament, which was designed to select a challenger for Alekhine); other similar, relevant topics. Philcha (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol abuse

I remember that this article made many references to alcohol abuse as a major cause for his defeat against Euwe, but now I can't find a single appearance of the words "alcohol", "drink" and so. Why was all that removed? Was that just untrue? --Taraborn (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! It should be discussed. I've added material to Max Euwe that deals with whether alcoholism was a factor in the 1935 match, and I'll adapt it for Alexander Alekhine in a few days if no-one objects or adds more detailed coverage first. Philcha (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Great job on the Max Euwe article Philcha! I was pretty sure that the alcoholism story was just that, a story, but I did not have the references to back it up. Since there were also no references to back the alcoholism, I just removed it. --KarlFrei (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That's awesome, thanks :D --Taraborn (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly true that Alekhine gave up drinking (and smoking) for the 1937 match. (e.g. "From Morphy to Fischer" by Israel Horowitz). But it's also true that most commentators don't attribute the 1935 result to Alekhine's alcoholism, at least not directly. (Horowitz notes that in 1937 Alekhine was in better physical and mental shape). Peter Ballard (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"most commentators don't attribute the 1935 result to Alekhine's alcoholism" - but the question / urban myth / whatever needs to be covered in this article, and I hope I've done that concisely but clearly. Re "in 1937 Alekhine was in better physical and mental shape", if you can be more specific and provide a ref, that would be great. Philcha (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Present tournament results as tables?

The main sections of this article present Alekhine's tournament results as short sentences in a long paragraph. I think it would be a lot easier to read the results if they were presented as tables with columns "Date", "Tournament name/ location" (name caters for e.g. the 1938 AVRO travelling circus), "Alekhine's placing", "Notes". The "Notes column" could contain various combinations of, for example: "without losing a game", "X points ahead", "ahead of A, B, and C", "behind Keres and Fine (first equal), ahead of ...". What do you think? Philcha (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I realise tables in the body of the article would be rather long, so we could consider other options. For the sake of completeness I'll list all the main ones I can see at the moment:

  1. Leave it as is.
  2. Result tables in each chronological section.
  3. Result tables at the foot of the article. Each chronological section would simply summarise (e.g. X first places out of Y tournments) and mention most notable results (e.g. great at San Remo 1930 and Bled 1931; poor at Nottingham 1936) and any other relevant points (e.g. the 1938 AVRO travelling circus was hardest on the older players).
  4. Result tables in a separate "list" article. Each chronological section would simply summarise and comment (as in previous option). This option would leave more space for other topics, e.g.: Nazism and other "personality" issues; why no re-match with Capablanca; assessment of his play; his writings (articles as well as books); whether Alekhine's post-1935 weakness and failure to hold a re-match with Capablanca contributed to development of post-WW2 FIDE championship system. Philcha (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My first thought is that option 3 would be best, but it shouldn't limit the ability of the article to include the issues mentioned in option 4. Multiple tables (option 2) don't seem to be a real benefit. A separate article would make sense if the table was too lengthy. I've sometimes considered whether we should have a separate article with a table of Bobby Fischer's tournament and match record. One general issue is that of what to leave out. Players in the 19th or early 20th century generally played a fairly small number of international tournaments in their entire careers. With the explosion of tournaments in the second part of the 20th century, today a career can include hundreds of tournaments—too much to be worth exhaustively detailing here, I think. Just listing all of Anatoly Karpov's tournament wins (>170) would be a chore. Anyway, an early attempt I made at summarizing a modest career in a table can be found at Herman Steiner. Quale (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please, do something. It's absolutely tedious to read those passages. --Taraborn (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done 1909-1914, what do you think of the result? Remember that what I've done is about 1/3 of Alekhine's tournaments before he became world champion. If we go ahead like this, someone will have to check agaisnt Khalifman's "Alexander Alekhine Games 1902-1922 Volume 1" (I used Alekhine's own book; I don't have Khalifman's) for earlier tournaments and for any that aren't in this list.
Does Khalifman present results in the same level of detail? Philcha (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The table is good! However the results should also be removed from the text (currently they're in both). A continuous roll-call of tournament reuslts in the text makes for very boring reading. Only the most important tournaments should be in the text. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it looks great. I changed the table formatting a bit, and made some of the columns narrower to fit better on the screen. (One nice thing about using piped links to shorten names is the balloon text on mouse hover will disambiguate Lasker and Lasker if you wait a moment without requiring clicking on the link.) If I did too much violence to your work, feel free to revert my changes. Quale (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouraging comments. And thanks, Quale, for reformatting. The one thing I'll change is to put spaces in the scores, as without spaces the / gets lost in e.g. 8½/13
One thing I'm still concerned about is whether Khalifman's more complete sets of results give the same amountof detail about each as Alekhine's. I'd be very grateful if anyone can check this, as I don't have Khalifman's editions of Alekhine's games.
I'm also concerned about the length. I guesstimate that the table at present (1909-1914) covers about 1/8 of A's tournaments. I'd be happy to go ahead if we agree that as a fall-back position we can create a separate "list of" article.Philcha (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll hold off adding further lines to the table until these points resolved, since it's not exactly fun.
When the table is complete for a section of A's career I'll change the text in that section to a summary (high spots, low spots, other comments) as described above. Philcha (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I expanded the table to include all of Alekhine's tournament results I had at hand, which is a fairly complete list before 1940 originally published in Chess Review after Alekhine's death. I took the spaces out of the scores accidentally on purpose—the table is much wider than I'd like but I wouldn't have taken them out again if I had remembered that you intentionally restored them. Coming back to the talk page jogged my memory, but too late. You can space the results again if you like. I actually prefer it without the spaces as you expect to find a / in every entry in that column and I don't think they're too hard to pick out, but YMMV. The table still needs results from 1940 on, and possibly also a table for match results. Quale (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Quale, thanks for extending the tournament table! I'm afraid I can't take it any further as I only have A.'s best games up to 1937. I'll edit the text sections to focus on highlights / summaries. Philcha (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
PS I've added refs for games up to & including the 2nd Euwe match. Please add refs for later games :-)
PPS Do you know how sortable tables are implemented? Can anyone create a template that includes custom Javascript? And can a template create the custom CSS used in the table? Philcha (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "WW1" and "Leaves Russia for France"

At present the "WW1" section includes his experiences during / just after the Russian Revolution and 2 notable tournaments - but these are mentioned in 2 sentences at the end of a long paragraph. Some options to deal with this:

  1. Re-title the "WW1" section to "WW1 and post-revolutionary Russia". Make the 2 tournaments a separate paragraph. Leave "Leaves Russia for France" as is. I'd still want to re-title "WW1" to "WW1 and post-revolutionary Russia".
  2. Re-title "Leaves Russia for France" to "Chess career 1920-1927". Move Moscow and USSR Championship tournaments to a new 1st para in this section.

I think both of these are better than the current arrangement because they make the resumption (successful) of his chess career more visible, and that the choice depends on whether we want to emphasise the chess career or the biographical aspects. Personally I'd prefer option 2, as it's chess that makes Alekhine notable. Any comments or suggestions? Philcha (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Succeeded by

In the World Championship succession box it says Succeeded by "The Interregnum and then Mikhail Botvinnik". This sounds very clumsy and unnecessary to me. I know there was a gap but he wasn't succeeded by an interruption. He was succeeded by Botvinnik, even if it took a couple of years. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. I don't think "Interregnum" can succeed anybody. Looking at Mikhail Botvinnik, however, I see that that article doesn't explain Alekhine's death or how the title came about well at all. It's hard for me to believe that that wasn't better explained there before. Quale (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I see there's another approach used, which would simply say the title is vacant and why (death in this case). See Template:s-vac. This is part of a rather more complex set of succession box templates than the ones we use now. Quale (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I like Quale's suggestion to use Template:s-vac - makes it plain there was no champion and still provides and opportunity to link to The Interregnum. Philcha (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
On a further look, IMO Template:s-vac is rather too complicated even for handling the Interregnum (see the full-strength version at Charles I of England ). But it might be useful for the split world championship 1993-2006. Philcha (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Although I can't think of a better way to format the list of spellings of A.'s surname, I feel it takes up too much space too early, as if it's a wall between mne and the real content. Since this was an almost instinctive reaction, other readers might feel the same way. I suggest a short final para in the intro, e.g. "A.'s surname is spelt quite differently in different languages", with a footnote showing the list of spellings. Philcha (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it may not be appropriate to place it as the first section, as this is only minor information compared to the other sections. However I do not think your suggestion would be completely satisfying, because the Lead must only sum up the other sections, not replace them. What about:
  • just moving the "Name" section in last place ?
  • put a footnote directly after the first phrase in the Lead ?
SyG (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some things to fix before it can be promoted:

note for information: the GA-review of Nikki311 has been started on the basis of this version. SyG (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved
  • Y Done The article is pretty long, and I don't think the lead summarizes it completely. The lead needs to be about four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
Yes - probably when the other items are resolved. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Philcha has tremendously expanded the Lead and now it summarises all the main points of the article (I consider the "improvement" stuff as too anecdotic to be in the Lead), so I believe this is done. SyG (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done "Alekhine was first introduced to chess by his mother, an older brother Alexei, and an older sister Varvara (Barbara)." - source?
Reliable source might be the problem, rumours and urban myths cluster round formative years of many notable people. I'd delete if not easily resolved. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Found a ref for this, don't know how reliable. Much of the stuff on the web is Wikipedia clones (often old) and summaries. Can anyone with a decent book help in this? (e.g. Khalifman). Philcha (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added another reference, from a different website. However I share Philcha's concerns that most of what is on the Web is suspect of being copied from Wikipedia, so I would very much like someone to add a paper reference, if possible. SyG (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done There are several paragraphs in World Chess Champion, first reign (1927-35) that need references.
Agreed. I think the 2 main ones are: not having a re-match with Capa, which will need a bit of research as IIRC there are conflicting accounts; A's playing record, which summarises the tables below, and the same refs will do. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on this and have added some. I'll report progress on "World Chess Champion, first reign (1927-35)" here as I work through it:
Outstanding items:
  • Y Done I doubt the statement about honorary colonel in Mexican army - see The 1998 Chess Cafe Holiday Quiz (one of whose authors is the chess historian Taylor Kingston).
This has been removed from the text. SyG (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Ref for "only seven out of 238 games in tournament play"
This has been removed from the text. SyG (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Ref for world record blindfold simul. Fine's Great Chess Games confirms all except score. Philcha (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are talking about the Paris world record in 1925, I have added a reference to chessgames that gives the score. SyG (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Might flow better if paras reordered, e.g.: tournament record; then no Capa rematch; Bogo matches 1 & 2; world tour / simuls; move 4th marriage to bottom of section. What do you think?
  • Y Done Ref for Bogo match 2 (1934).
I have added a reference. SyG (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Ref(s) for Chess Olympiads.
I had a look at the table and you seem to have taken care of that yourself, so this is done. SyG (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Refs for Capa rematch issue.
I have reshaped the paragraph to avoid describing the negociations. SyG (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Ref for "By late 1943, Alekhine was spending all of his time in Spain and Portugal, ..."
I have added two references supporting this claim. SyG (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Philcha (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems all paragraphs of the section "World Chess Champion, first reign (1927-35)" have some references now, so I would consider this as done. SyG (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The article could use a really good copy edit.
Could you please be more specific? Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is mostly comma problems. If everything else gets sorted out, then I have no problem fixing those myself. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You want to add them or remove some? Might be a dialect issue; I've noticed many Wikipedia editors use commas to an extent that I was taught (in Scotland) to regard as excessive :-) Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately as I am not a native speaker I am not able to fix that myself. I have seen Krakatoa doing some copyedit on this article three days ago, I do not know if that solves the comma issues. Maybe we could ask him to give a look to the article and fix problems he may detect ? SyG (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done The last paragraph in Contributions and legacy needs some refs. Also, it is a bit confusing (maybe because I know nothing about chess?)
It does.
Don't take this personally, but why are you reviewing the article if you know nothing about chess? I don't think it has actually made a difference in this particular case, but that's just luck. To put it another way, I don't think it was fair to put you in a potentially tricky position. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't take that personally. It is just an unfortunate part of the GA Review process. It is good, though, as articles are supposed to be accessible to all readers, so someone who is familiar with all-things chess may not know that it is hard to understand for someone else. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate "supposed to be accessible to all readers", in fact I've been on that side of a few debates about presentation and / or assumed prior knowledge (Cambrian explosion is a real tough one). Perhaps reviews shoud be done by pairs, one with and one without prior knowledge. Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've re-read the para and think it's perfectly clear for a player but I don't see how to explain it to a non-player without a complete article on the rules. The best I can do is wikilink five queens. Any ideas, anyone? Philcha (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
"but a recently discovered photo from that game in progress shows a position which could never have occurred in the game quoted by Alekhine against that opponent from the tournament." - this is the part I find confusing. So Alekhine said the game went one way, but the photo showed that it could not have possibly happened? I think the wording is just awkward. Nikki311 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Alekhine was accused of tarting up a few game scores (the recorded moves) to make them more impressive. Best way to decide on wording is to find a ref, preferably with a copy of the pic and details, and see how that puts it. Philcha (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the confusing sentence, trying to explain it at length so that the issue gets clearer. Unless someone states otherwise, I would consider this as done. SyG (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Misc notes:

The article will be placed on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. After the hold is up, I will reassess the article and decide whether to pass or fail it. If the editors of this article have no intention of fixing these problems within the seven days (or don't have time) I would appreciate it if they could let me know, so I can move on to other articles. Thanks! Good luck! Nikki311 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


The discussion above is getting unwieldy, so here are the outstanding items. I'll add any others that crop up. Any help would be much appreciated!

  • Ref for 1939 negotiations for Capa-A. title match. (I have sources for both Botvinnik and Keres negotiating for a title match then - confusion in text?). Y Done
I do not see these negotiations in the text anymore, so this is done. SyG (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately not done. I was not clear enough in my last comment. There are good sources for both Botvinnik and Keres negotiating after AVRO 1938 for a title match; the article should and does refer to these.
The problem is the paragraph "Supported by Latin-American financial pledges, Capablanca challenged Alexander Alekhine to a world title match in November. Tentative plans not, however, actually backed by a deposit of the required purse ($10,000 in gold), led to a virtual agreement to play at Buenos Aires, Argentina beginning April 14, 1940," for which I cannot find sources. Philcha (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think these statements are jut not true. Probably Capablanca did have some possibilities (and maybe even enough funds) in 1928-1929, but not after the Great Depression. Now Philcha has removed this dubious statement from the article, so this is done. SyG (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Refs for Capa rematch issue. I found good sources for how it started, but nothing for later developments apart from the general bitterness described by Fine (and others).
I have reshaped the paragraph accordingly. SyG (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Ref for "His loss to Latvian master Hermanis Matisons at Prague in 1931 was his first loss in a serious chess event since winning the world championship."
This is stated in Bill Wall's biography. I have added the reference. SyG (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Refs for any influence of A on how Kasparov changed his style during his 1984 Karpov match - I've seen it described as "alekhinisation" but can't find anything now.
This part of the article has been deleted. However, I have added a paragraph about the general influence of Alekhine on Kasparov, backed by Kasparov's citations. SyG (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Philcha (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Y Done Ref for world record blindfold simul Chicago 1933. Fine's Great Chess Games confirms all except score.
Done by SyG
  • Y Done Refs for endgame studies, especially the one diagrammed.
  • Y Done Ref(s) for Chess Olympiads. | ALEXANDER ALEKHINE (1892-1946) by Bill Wall does not cover all the ground. Philcha (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Ref for lost "only seven out of 238 games in tournament play" during 1st reign
This has been removed from the text. SyG (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Should we just give the tournament highlights, notably the runaway wins at San Remo & Bled and (sign of decline?) 2= at Hastings 1933/34? This is what we did for pre-1927 chess career, leaving the details to the tables. (See earlier Talk post "Present tournament results as tables?"). This was on my to-do list, but the GA review caught me by surprise.
Catching someone by surprise thanks to a "GA-review" is a first time for me, I usually just hide behind a door ;-) More seriously, I think you are right that overloading the text with tons of results just makes it farer from "brilliant prose". I will change the paragraph accordingly. SyG (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I will re-insert San Remo & Bled, as these are A's most famous wins. Philcha (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The new paragraph is fine for me, so let's call this DONE. SyG (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Refs for "Alekhine was gradually rehabilitated by the Soviet chess elite, following his death in 1946." I suspect Kotov's 1975 book on A. and Kotov and Yudovich's Soviet School .. would cover this but don't have them (might get lucky w Google Books).
Done. Philcha (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Ref for "enhancement" of game at Sabadell 1945 (might be easy, clues in current text). Mysteries at Sabadell looks promising.
Done. Philcha (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done "World Chess Champion, second reign (1937-46)" includes some stuff about A.'s "Nazi" writings, which should be merged into "Nazi controversy". The article's structure has problems from this point onwards: the Nazi controversy led to A. being ostracised by almost all top-class players and officials; but at the time of his death A. was negotiating a title match with Botvinnik. There are no really clean dividing lines. I'm inclined to keep "Nazi controversy" separate becuase of its level of detail but merge "Death" into "World Chess Champion, second reign (1937-46)". A's life was pretty turbulent, so it's hard to separate bio from strictly chess issues (I found the same with Wilhelm Steinitz's not quite so turbulent life). I'm also inclined to make "Nazi controversy" a sub-section of"Assessment". Comments please!
Done. Philcha (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done A's Olympiad performances are currently detailed in "1st reign", which IMO is unsatisfactory for 2 reasons: Beunos Aires 1939 was in his 2nd reign; the whole para is too bulky for 4 events, considering how we've condensed his tournament results. I suggest making a table for the Olympiads, moving the text for Beunos Aires 1939 to "2nd reign" and condensing the text for the ones that belong in "1st reign".
Done. Philcha (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review 2

Is everything above completed? The seven days are going to be up soon, but since so much great progress is being made, I'm willing to let everything play out. Let me know when you all are absolutely finished with everything you wanted to fix, and I'll look over the article again. Nikki311 03:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, the two remaining issues above are:
  • The article could use a really good copyedit (comma problems).
  • References for 1939 negotiations for Capablanca - Alekhine title match.
Please tell me if there are others I have missed. SyG (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a bot for accessdates? That's a cite web param that I don't normally use because (a) I can't remember which date format it likes; (b) more importantly, I don't see what use it is, it's certainly no guard against linkrot.
Otherwise SyG is right. I've just removed the 1939 negotiations for Capablanca - Alekhine title match as neither of us could find refs and it sounds impropbable - Capa's health was deteriorating (died 1942), Kere's challenge was public, I've never previously heard of an agreement to play in 1940.
Re the copyedit, (Nikki, you said you would handle that. Thanks for the offer, which I gratefully accept as it will avoid silly guessing games. I think it would be best to let SyG and me look over the results before the actual review proceeds. While I don't doubt your skills as a copy editor, you said you know next to nothing about chess, and that creates a risk that a copyedit will make subtle but misleadig changes in the meaing of a few phrases.
I'll take this opportunity to thank SyG for resolving most of the items on the "outstanding" list - excellent work! Philcha (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will ask Nikki311 to have her final look on the article and decide the dreaded pass/fail verdict. SyG (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I got your message. The article has been changed quite a bit by a user not involved in this GAN, so look over those changes first to make sure everything is still alright. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is really only suppose to be four paragraphs max, but you can solve that problem by just combining a few of the shorter paragraphs. I've got this page bookmarked, so just let me know when you've checked the recent changes, and I'll be back to do the copy edit. Nikki311 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have scrutinised the recent edits made by Mibelz and I found nothing bad (all of them are suitably referenced and go rather fine in the flow of the article).
I have also reorganised the Lead so that it goes into exactly four paragraphs. These paragraphs are organised as follow:
  1. Alekhine's life until the world title (included)
  2. Alekhine's life between the world title and the WW2 (excluded)
  3. Alekhine's life during the WW2 until his death, including the Nazi controversy
  4. Assessment of Alekhine influence on chess
Please note that I voluntarily removed any reference to the "Accusations of improving games" issue in the Lead, as I consider (subjectively, of course) this issue as a very minor one while the Lead should only talk about the major points (in my understanding). SyG (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The policy about leads has a problem. Yes, wp:lead says "up to 4 paragraphs." But every time I've seen it discussed, it has been that said any distinct topic that is in the text should appear in the lead, which I think is based on "in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." So I'm re-inserting the part about "Accusations of improving games".
Is there a bot for checking and inserting accessdates, to make sure all the latest refs have them? Philcha (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. But, if you do find a link that needs one and you don't want to go through the article history to find out when you used it...you can use the "last date accessed" (or today's date) as the accessdate. Nikki311 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A few more suggestions:

  • Seven of the sentences in World War I and post-revolutionary Russia begin with "In (date)...". I'd change at least a few instances for a more interesting read.
Fair comment - I'll see what I can do. Philcha (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Philcha (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Did he divorce the Russian baroness Sergewin before re-marrying?
I've wondered that about all A.'s re-marriages, but the sources I've seen say nothing about the ends of his marriages and no other editor has clarified this. Perhaps some day we'll get lucky and a reader who has some old book will let us know. Philcha (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The paragraph beginning "In March 1938..." has three sentences in a row starting with "In (date)..."
Y Done Philcha (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite a few of the sentences under World War II (1939–1945) also start "In (date)..."
Fair comment - I'll see what I can do. Philcha (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Philcha (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've also done a few copyedits of my own. Most significantly I've tried to make the change of momentum in the 1935 Euwe match clear. Philcha (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • External links don't have to be in the cite web template or have accessdates, so I removed those.

All of the improvements look really good! I've done the copy edit (mostly commas, word choice, and combing a few of the smaller paragraphs). Nikki311 06:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Philcha (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

The article is looking really good, and all of my concerns have been addressed. I'm promoting the article to Good Article status. When I took on this review, I wasn't expecting such an article overhaul...both of you should be proud of all the great work you did. My last suggestion (and it's just a suggestion!) is that because the article is so long now (over 92,000 bytes according to the Article History) it might be a good idea to move all the match/tournament results to a new page (maybe List of Alexander Alekhine's competition results or something to that effect) and go for a Featured List. It might be worth a shot. Nikki311 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes! We did it! Thanks very much for your great review that really gave us a lot of opportunities to improve the article! SyG (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree, many thanks, Nikki311!
SyG, you did a great job with the list of outstanding items! Philcha (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the note left on my talk page, I don't think the length would be that big of a problem at FAC. I've never seen an article fail solely because of length. Also, I like the tables. I think reading endless amounts of results in the article text would be too much. The tables remind me of the tables in boxing articles and mixed martial arts articles (see Mike Tyson#Professional boxing record). It would be a good idea to test them in other articles and form a consensus on a universal format, as it makes all the articles look more professional. It might be a good idea to do a Peer Review before going to FAC, just to get some more eyes on the article. I don't think it needs to much more work to pass FAC...but it's probably more than you think. Every article I've taken to FAC, has failed the first time, but the reviewers leave excellent comments that will really improve the article. Nikki311 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments about the tables.
"test them in other articles and form a consensus on a universal format" is in progress.
"I don't think it needs to much more work to pass FAC...but it's probably more than you think" reminds me of the puzzle that ends, "What would the other guy advise me to do?" :-) Philcha (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philcha's notes

A few useful snippets I found while searching for refs for the GA review:

Philcha (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World championship succession

I've used the template package used for English monarchs, in order to handle the Interregnum of World Chess Champions - as suggested by Quale in March 2008. The same package seems to work well for the more complicated reign of Mikhail Botvinnik. Philcha (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)