Template:Did you know nominations/Professional Rapid Online Chess League

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Professional Rapid Online Chess League edit

  • ... that Professional Rapid Online Chess League (PRO Chess League) is a worldwide online rapid chess league with 48 teams, whose members include more than 100 grandmasters.Rosen, Eric (January 19, 2017). "PRO Chess League: Bringing Chess into Mainstream Sports Culture". KWMU National Public Radio. Retrieved February 12, 2017. While it's hard to say whether chess will ever become as popular as major sports, I wouldn't be surprised if the PRO Chess league creates a popularity surge in chess in the years to come. Copeland, Sam (December 24, 2016). "48 Teams, Over 100 Grandmasters To Play PRO Chess League". United States Chess Federation. Retrieved February 12, 2017. Doggers, Peter (August 25, 2016). "U.S. Chess League Becomes PRO Chess League". United States Chess Federation. Retrieved February 12, 2017. The Professional Rapid Online (PRO) Chess League is the combined vision of what the USCL and Chess.com see as the future of high-stakes, top-level, entertaining chess. Unlike its predecessor, the USCL, the PRO Chess League will have faster time controls, provide more flexibility in forming and managing teams, and allow for "free agent" acquisitions from all over the world. The fundamental goal will remain promoting the growth and togetherness of the... local community chess clubs.

Created by Chessrat (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen () 14 February 2017 (UTC) at 16:43(UTC).

  • New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. Earwig and spot checking found no significant close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. NPOV. Well-cited, including the interesting hook. Good to go. Edwardx (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)