The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues discussed at Talk:Chess#FA_concerns, which have not been addressed in weeks. Setting aside minor problems such as badly formatted references (and several references to youtube or blogs), the article has unreferenced paragraphs and sections and worse, seems not to be comprehensive. Some sections are just one-sentence long, and there are entire issues that are not covered at all (chess and military [2], chess and board games [3]/ [4]) or are covered too superficially (chess in popular culture, online chess). Some topics like online chess are mentioned only in the lead and not in the body at all. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Delist. I don't think it’s worth greatly diminishing the article in order to keep it at FA (and it would likely fail comprehensiveness as a result if tried). What is most surprising to me about this is that we don't have an article titled Introduction to chess. That would likely be a far easier article to bring up to Featured Article status, and perhaps even be more useful to readers (if they were properly directed towards it). As it stands, the article really does have too many problems... A shame, but not surprising, given its age (it’s surprising that it lasted this long!). — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 19:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Piotrus: I tried to start a revrite of the article to try to repeat the salvation 10 years ago, but it looks like that it is currently owned by a gentleman who knows chess strategy well, but perhaps does not have the right feeling for the strategy of building a high quality article. I have many better things to do than to try to persuade him that all chess rules should ideally be described in one place or that the infobox should correspond with the text of the article. I am sorry. Ioannes Pragensis ( talk) 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues discussed at Talk:Chess#FA_concerns, which have not been addressed in weeks. Setting aside minor problems such as badly formatted references (and several references to youtube or blogs), the article has unreferenced paragraphs and sections and worse, seems not to be comprehensive. Some sections are just one-sentence long, and there are entire issues that are not covered at all (chess and military [2], chess and board games [3]/ [4]) or are covered too superficially (chess in popular culture, online chess). Some topics like online chess are mentioned only in the lead and not in the body at all. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Delist. I don't think it’s worth greatly diminishing the article in order to keep it at FA (and it would likely fail comprehensiveness as a result if tried). What is most surprising to me about this is that we don't have an article titled Introduction to chess. That would likely be a far easier article to bring up to Featured Article status, and perhaps even be more useful to readers (if they were properly directed towards it). As it stands, the article really does have too many problems... A shame, but not surprising, given its age (it’s surprising that it lasted this long!). — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 19:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Piotrus: I tried to start a revrite of the article to try to repeat the salvation 10 years ago, but it looks like that it is currently owned by a gentleman who knows chess strategy well, but perhaps does not have the right feeling for the strategy of building a high quality article. I have many better things to do than to try to persuade him that all chess rules should ideally be described in one place or that the infobox should correspond with the text of the article. I am sorry. Ioannes Pragensis ( talk) 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply