I wouldn't start an article with a large diagram of another Chess variant. The diagram of the initial setup should be the dominant eye-catching feature of an article. At the stage of the introduction it is not of much interest to the reader what exactly the setup of Fortress Chess was, other than that it started the Kings in opposit corners, behind a rank of 4 extra Pawns. (Which is also visible in the setup diagram of Guagamela Chess.) If you want to show a diagram of it, I would advice to do it in the Notes section. Then you can also discuss in detail what imperfections you percieve there that you wanted to improve on.
But it is not clear to me what the 'perfection' is. The 'Fortress Chess' setup looks much more convenient. A Knight on g1/b8 is awkwardly placed; it seems much better to swap those with the Rooks on e1/d8. And the Bishops in the original also seem more easy to develop.
I wouldn't start an article with a large diagram of another Chess variant. The diagram of the initial setup should be the dominant eye-catching feature of an article. At the stage of the introduction it is not of much interest to the reader what exactly the setup of Fortress Chess was, other than that it started the Kings in opposit corners, behind a rank of 4 extra Pawns. (Which is also visible in the setup diagram of Guagamela Chess.) If you want to show a diagram of it, I would advice to do it in the Notes section. Then you can also discuss in detail what imperfections you percieve there that you wanted to improve on.
But it is not clear to me what the 'perfection' is. The 'Fortress Chess' setup looks much more convenient. A Knight on g1/b8 is awkwardly placed; it seems much better to swap those with the Rooks on e1/d8. And the Bishops in the original also seem more easy to develop.