Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of female chess grandmasters/archive1

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of female chess grandmasters

edit

List of female chess grandmasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a list of all of the chess grandmasters who have spent the last year being called the "real-life Beth Harmon". Not anyone can be called a "Grandmaster". FIDE formally established the Grandmaster (GM) title in 1950, and not long after, set up formal criteria for how a player can obtain the title. To be awarded the title today, players need to be rated at a GM level, and to have a GM performance at three tournaments. A disproportionate number of featured lists seem to be on various sport topics, but none of them are on chess. Feedback is welcome! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

edit
  • Lead says that winners of the Women's World Championship have become Grandmasters since "no later than 2003", but the body says this happened "at some point before 2006" – which is it?
  • Judit Polgar should not be linked twice in the lead
  • Suggest moving links in birth date column to references for consistency across all individuals; this also allows the information to source other cells in that row
  • Peak rating links can stay where they are
  • Split WWC column into two columns (start and end) – if needed, place "WWC" in a separate row above the two, like so:
WWC
Start End
1962 1978

Overall, I really like this list – there's a lot of interesting context instead of simply listing the individuals. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this looks good, but I'm curious as to why the "Title app" column was added. Those links would be better as citations in the existing references column. (Placing them in citations also allows IABot to archive the links.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's useful to keep the applications separate from the other references. Otherwise, it's a lot harder to tell which players have their applications available and which do not. Besides being inline refs, they also have the information on each players' norms, which is directly associated with the information in the table, but wouldn't really fit directly in the table itself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

edit
  • There are some oddities to the table format. Some rows have refs in the last column, others do not. Some have the date of birth directly link to an external source, others do not, and some have both. Are the xlinks on the DOBs intended to serve as refs? If so, why not just put them in the refs column? Also, I checked the direct xlink on the DOB of Olga Girya and ironically it does not mention her date of birth anywhere, so that element of her row is unsourced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit
  • All tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have them for the main table, but not the Key table, so you can just change e.g. |Name to !scope=row |Name
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "After missing a second GM norm by a ½ point in 1978, FIDE nonetheless decided" - it was not FIDE that missed the norm, so this should be worded as "After she missed a second GM norm by a ½ point in 1978, FIDE nonetheless decided"
  • "Koneru Humpy (right) was the first to break Judit Polgar's record as the youngest female GM." - she was the only one to break Polgar's record, not the first, as after that it wasn't Polgar's record to break any more
  • "Judit Polgar's record as the overall youngest GM had only lasted three years" - seems strange to mention this for the first time here and without any context as to exactly when/how she lost the record
  • "The Kosintseva sisters Tatiana and Nadezhda as well as the Muzychuk sisters Anna and Mariya both joined the Polgar sisters as pairs of sisters to both be awarded the Grandmaster title" - not technically accurate, as there are three Polgar sisters, not a pair
  • "While the number of female Grandmasters has continued to steadily increase, the rate of new women to achieve the title has thus far peaked around 2010" - I don't understand this. The number of new female GMs has both steadily increased and peaked? Is that not a contradiction in terms?
    • Changed to "While there have continued to be more female Grandmasters, the rate of new women to achieve the title has thus far peaked around 2010." Is that clearer? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely the peak year was 2008, when there were five awards.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't thinking about it in terms of a single year, but more like a range of five or six years from 2006 to 2011. The quote from the article is "...by the 1990s women were starting to reach grandmaster level. But by the end of the 2000s, this catching up seems to have plateaued". I didn't want to say it that way because I thought 2000s could be easy to confuse as the century not the decade. I had wrote "around 2010", but I just changed it to "approaching 2010" to better capture that it was towards the end of the decade. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

edit

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replied, thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attempts made for fixing few of my comments. I stay neutral on promotion of this article as a featured list. There are yet few places where I think the prose should be more neutral. It is a really interesting topic, and thanks a lot for your work here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

edit

Hopefully my comments are helpful. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sure thing, I just don't see what benefit the flag icons provide. In any case, image review passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pinging Sportsfan77777 as a reminder to address the icons. If you insist on keeping those, then please elaborate on how exactly they would "aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want to look at the information for all of the players from a specific country in the context of the list as a whole (sorted by a different column), the flags will help you find all of the players from that country. You could sort by federation, but then you lose the context of the rest of the list. You could switch back-and-forth, but I personally find that annoying and easy to lose track of things. Hence, it improves navigation (which in turn helps the reader's comprehension). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

edit
  • As "Grandmaster" is a formal title, and we shouldn't be confusing it with "Woman Grandmaster", I would respectfully suggest the list is moved to "List of female chess Grandmasters". Indeed, that would then beg the question, is "chess" even required in the title, is it ambiguous?
  • Judit Polgár has a diacritic which appears to be missing in the lead/caption.
  • You abbreviate Grandmaster to GM immediately but then immediately don't use that abbreviation in the following sentence(s)...
    • It's common to use both the full term and the abbreviation depending on the situation. (There is a difference in that when you see "GM", you would read it as "GEE-EM" instead of the full term.) For example, when you are referring to "Grandmasters" in general, you would probably write out the full term. As another example, "GM norm" is always abbreviated. I aimed to be consistent with different types of usage. There were a few situations where I wasn't sure what the preference would be, and mostly just tried to re-word so as to avoid those cases. Were there any instances you were concerned about in particular? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, having just looked at Shahade's new book, I'm going to double back on this and say the only time it is correct to use the capitalized term Grandmaster is when referring to the "Grandmaster title", which can be abbreviated by as the GM title. When referring to a player with the GM title, it is correct to refer to them as a "grandmaster" in lowercase. That would also answer your question about the title of the article in that lowercase would be correct because it is referring to players with the Grandmaster title and not the Grandmaster title itself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Extending on that, I made it more consistent by always writing out "Grandmaster title" in the prose, and now mainly only just abbreviating for "GM norm". I left a few instances where it is more convenient to abbreviate in the key and the image captions. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Grandmaster title was formally established by FIDE in 1950. " and was open to both men and women?
    • I think so (or rather, there were no specific restrictions on that). Do you think that's worth clarifying? I was hoping that would be clear from stating the reason why Menchik wasn't awarded the title. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since no later than 2003" I don't follow but I am tired. Do you mean just "Since 2003"?
  • "in large part by" -> " largely by" or "mostly by"?
  • "were a mere six female Grandmasters" instead of "mere" how many male GMs were there?
    • The point I wanted to make was that the raw number has increased (as in "mere" relative to the current women's total, not the overall total back then). The number relative to the overall total has always been roughly constant, or at least it never increased to a significant percentage (as it states in the body of the article). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2021, all female...." it's now 2022...
  • "The Grandmaster title was formally established by FIDE in 1950" vs "FIDE first established formal criteria for the Grandmaster title in 1953" doesn't seem to tie up.
    • They declared various people Grandmasters in 1950, but there was no reason why certain players received the title. (It was related to who they thought was a top player, but there was no criteria of how they determined that until 1953.)
  • FIDE and Elo rating system link to the same article. Probably need a footnote here explaining why the same target is linked via different pipes.
  • "and just the second" remove "just".
  • "women still make up a small fraction of the total" could be specific here.
  • "obtain the Grandmaster (GM) title" you don't need to show us the abbreviation again at this late point in the article...
  • "minimum FIDE rating of 2500" overlinked.
  • "using an Elo rating system, which" ditto.
  • "7/9 against 2380-rated opponents, 6½/9 " suddenly struck me that the 7/9 and 6½/9 is completely alien and unexplained. Suggest a footnote or something to explain chess scoring.
    • I added a note to say "7 points in 9 games". Normally, for the chess GAs I've written, I would also put "A win is worth 1 point, a draw is worth a ½ point, and a loss is worth 0 points.", but I didn't do that here because that is covered by the previous note. I could repeat it if you prefer that? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table, why under Federation aren't you linking the actual federation (e.g. Hungarian Chess Federation) rather than just the country?
    • I think the point is to list the country associated with the federation. (I could change the key to clarify that?) Not all of the federations have articles, and most of the ones that do aren't very good (i.e. very brief, and either stub-class or start-class). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see any good reason to abbreviate the dates, the table isn't that wide and it looks clumsy and archaic to reduce to three-character month format.
  • Seems like the vast majority of these individuals have a portrait image which could be included in the table in another column rather than searching for them dotted around the article.
  • For me the ext link which should show me all the female GMs from FIDE website doesn't work at all.

That's a quick starter for me. Plenty to work on here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the (first part of the) review! I replied to all points above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging The Rambling Man. Apologies for not doing it before. No rush, though. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe still no rush The Rambling Man, but could you reply with whether and/or when you plan to continue the review? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may want to ping TRM again about the above, though I know he is less active nowadays. Sorry this nom has been in the queue for so long! Hopefully after this source review you'll be good to go – Aza24 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting
Reliability
Verifiability

Thanks for the review, Aza24! I replied above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, and thanks for your work here. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this one has been open way too long. I've looked it through, and I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 20:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_female_chess_grandmasters/archive1&oldid=1096990759"