The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

---

An article on a bogus but still ingenious "automaton" that played chess: a device that concealed the fact that the chess was instead being played by a cooped-up human, thanks to magnets and candlelight. This is an article to which I have contributed nothing aside from liberal application of my fine-toothed comb, and therefore one that I can unashamedly praise. Almost exactly two years ago, this failed as a featured article, mostly for its sketchiness (here is its state at the time); it is certainly informative now, and it has also gone through the "GA" and peer review hoops. So what do you all think? -- Hoary 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as principal author - and a hearty thanks to Hoary in particular for his help on it over the last month. I think it meets the standard:
  • Prose is in great shape, and has been copyedited by at least three different people.
  • It is very comprehensive - I believe I've covered every relevant piece of information available, and accurately - I found a number of great sources.
  • It's neutral and stable - no quibbling about facts, no questions as to whether you can even have a POV on a chess-playing automaton.
  • I believe it meets the relevant MOS guidelines.
  • All images are public domain and relevant for the exception of two which are released through the GFDL.
  • With references included, the text is roughly 37kb. The storied history of the machine and its newfound relevance and attention make it a worthwhile size, in my opinion.
• I'm very proud of this one, perhaps moreso than my first successful FA. I think it's very representative of our best work here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well written, adequate citations, good use of images. Addhoc 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, beautiful work. Nitpick: Ref 71 (Miezkowski, Salon) says "URL accessed", but doesn't give a URL? From the peer review: Still nothing about the voice box? The Crooked Hinge? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I may have accidentally removed the link at some point, I'll re-add it. I also forgot about the book (although I have it waiting for me on interlibrary loan!), so I'll add that in shortly. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A brilliant and very interesting read. Comments as I went throughout:
  • • Thanks in advance, I broke up your comments for easier replies, I hope you don't mind. My replies in itals:
  • years alone shouldn't be linked per the Manual of Style.
    • I'll get on the date links, I tend to overlink dates and fix them later - I'm not shocked that I missed a few.
  • When describing the Turkish look of the human model, it's important to mention that the machine was named after it; this might not be understandable for all readers at first.
    • Good call on the naming issue, I'll find a way to work that in.
  • I've also noted that there is nothing written in the section about candles, how exactly did the player see the parts?
    • I mention the candles at the end - it's important to note that the actual part of the candles wasn't completely revealed until later on, perhaps that isn't clear. Will that cover it, or should I find a way to work it in earlier?
      • Well, yeah. Some people may come to the article for the purpose of understanding the mechanism, and incomplete descriptions would cause some confusion. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed, i believe'. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not everything was lost, however" in "The final years and beyond" section doesn't make much sense.
    • I think that's a bit of flair if anything. I'll just remove it (no offense, Hoary).
  • The following sentence should explain which existing parts it used in building the machine (e.g. "...spent $120,000 building his own version of Kempelen's machine over a five-year period from 1984 using the remained illustrations of the machine").
    • Is the section confusing? It mentions that the only part it used was the original chessboard.
      • That's a part of the previous suggestion. Removing the sentence about the existing parts in the first place would probably fix it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed, I think. If not, I'm misunderstanding you, I think. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlinks at the "Revealing the secrets" seem overwhelming, remove the links or at least create stubs.
    • I'll see what I can do, I cut back a LOT from what was there.
  • A bit of point of view issue at the beginning of the "Inspiration", I suggest rewording "The Turk was so popular and mysterious that its construction..." to "Due to the Turk's popularity and mysteriousness, its construction..." Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense. Thanks for the commentary! --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on the grounds of factual inaccuracy. The images Image:Turk-engraving6.jpg and Image:Turk-engraving1.jpg in the Construction section are presented as theough they are an accurate representation of the Turk's workings. They are illustrations of Joseph Friedrich Freiherr von Racknitz's contemporary theories of how the device was operated. However, as Standage himself notes (p.88):

There are, indeed, a few problems with Racknitz's explanation. First, his model was not in proportion to the actual Turk; the cabinet was far too long in relation to its height and depth. Second, even according to Racknitz's distorted measurements, the operating hiding behind the drawer would have had to have fitted into a space five feet long, eighteen inches wide, and about seven inches tall -- surely an impossibility for an adult. Racknitz's engravings show a diminutive operator smaller than the Turkish figure itself, which Rackham described as medium-sized.

• If this can be fixed I will support. Andrew Levine 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting catch. My question to you would be how to note this. Are mentions in the photo boxes enough, something along the lines of "This is a distorted measurement based on Racknitz's calculations, showing an impossible design in relation to the actual dimensions of the machine?" I ask only because I don't use Racknitz's measurements or much else in the text itself, so I assume it's how the photos are captioned that you object to? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your suggestion is good, and I believe the more accurate engravings on pp. 198-199 of Standage should be added. The captions representing the 18th-century illos as accurate are probably all that need correcting. Andrew Levine 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The text will be adjusted by the time you finish reading this. The illustrations on 198-199 are replicated in the Levitt text in greater detail - they're apparently from the American Heritage article, and I'm thinking the fair use rationale would be shaky (on one hand, it's the most accurate engraving available, but the free ones illustrate the Turk the same way). Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess it can do without the fair-use images. For some reason I thought they were from the 19th century. Support. Andrew Levine 17:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. What a cool article! semper fictilis 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Inspirtation section is composed of many tiny paras, merging them would improve the flow of prose.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thought process was to differentiate between subjects. Thus, with your comment, I recalled wanting to combine the two paragraphs about inventions. The rest doesn't appear logical to my eye, but I have been working on this for over two months. Any suggestions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is just a suggestion based on my past experiences with FA. So no, not really :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I can't see any obvious problems. A very interesting and informative read. Trebor 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this one has been very close to FA quality for a long time. Pascal.Tesson 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Support The lead is brief and unsatisfying, given the (outstanding) detail offered in the body of the text. + Ceoil 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle a lot with leads. Any suggestions at all? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A few sentences summarising the "The final years" and "Revealing the secrets" sections would complete the lead overview; maybe mention that the machine fell from view until the 1854 fire, a word or two on Mitchell's articles, and a note on the revival of interest following the launch of Big Blue.
• The sentence "Upon the return of the ship that Mälzel died on, Mälzel's various machines, including the Turk, fell into the hands of a friend of Mälzel's, the businessman John Ohl" is a little hard to understand.
• Excellent work overall, though. + Ceoil 14:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have switched to support as comments above are really only my own preference. Lead is within 2a. Ceoil 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a good addition to the Featured Articles. I agree with the comment that longer paragraphs might improve the narrative that may just be my personal preference. Well done and thank you for your hard work. -Susanlesch 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Really enjoyed it, especially the first part, which has excellent hard prose (once Von Kempelen exits the picture, it necessarily turns into a bit of a shaggy dog story). One thing I itched to know, but it seems is unknown, is the identity of the guy inside the machine. He had to be some player to beat most comers and do the knight's tour. Perhaps I'm overimaginative, but I read into this article that the reason Von Kempelen stopped demonstrating the machine was that his player was no longer available. It seems to me he must have had a different guy when the machine started losing regularly. Well done to the editors—a great read. qp10qp 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive comments. Your itching raises an interesting point - Kempelen didn't want to tour the machine because he didn't want to be known as "The Turk guy" (I can somehow relate to that, no wonder I'm drawn to this thin). If that's the vibe you got, I'll have to make some repairs, so thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No repairs necessary. It's my mind that needs repairing. qp10qp 03:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Very cool, nice work on a fascinating subject. Good finds on the images, too! Wickethewok 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's pretty much the only part that I ended up holding over - whoever initially did the article got some excellent quality scans of the materials uploaded, so it was more about my picking and choosing which ones were best. Being public domain helped a lot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - excellent article, though I too would love to know who the director was. It must have been quite a feat: playing on an upside-down board while shoved into a tiny box, and at the same time having to work the mechanics of the automaton. Yomangani^talk 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great article; meets all the criteria as far as I can see. Good job! Tomgreeny 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.