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]
    • Yes, the external links are also intended to serve as refs. RunningTiger123 commented on something similar. I replied there. Also, I added ref's for Girya's DOB and a few others that were missing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:46, 30 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]
  • Quick comment – The years listed for the books in refs 6 and 50 differ from the years in the full book cites. Keane & Levy is listed as 1976 in ref 6 and 1970 in the full cite, while Tanner is given as 2016 in ref 50 and the extended cite says it's from 1998. Those should be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:51, 1 January 2022 (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

  • "a Soviet chess player from Georgia" — suggesting to link Georgia (country)
    • Generally, we don't link countries in the prose (see MOS:OVERLINK). It is linked in the list itself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if you leave to link soviet Union, I'll still suggest Georgia to be linked. It is not a very widely known country, and may be confused with the US state of Georgia. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link "Soviet Union" in the Background section as well.
  • "was not considered as she had already been killed in World War II" → "was not considered because of her death during World War II"
  • "FIDE first established formal criteria for the Grandmaster title in 1953. These criteria included" → "FIDE first established formal criteria for the Grandmaster title in 1953, which included"
    • I think the sentence would be too long (and have too many clauses) if I combine them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Upto you, but I feel that these two sentenced don't flow particularly well, as 'criteria' is being repeated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No earlier than 1977," → In 1977
  • "established herself as the" → "became the"
    • I used "established" because it was something she had to prove over time, not so much a well-defined position. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should not be saying that in Wikipedia's voice. To me, 'established' reads bit like news articles. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be competitive against" → "to be compete against"?
    • This doesn't mean the same thing. "competitive" means something "can win against" or "can get good results against", whereas "compete" just means that "she played against" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The epitome of her success" — according to whom? We'll need attribution as to who considers it her "epitome"
    • The book uses the phrase "zenith of her career". I think this is a widely held opinion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if it is a widely held opinion, we should no be saying that in Wikipedia's voice. Something like "It is widely believed that the epitome of her success came in 1977 ..." would be better. But, for that, we'll need at-least 2-3 sources supporting that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added a link to her own interview, and rephrased to "Her most notable tournament result". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changed this again to "At the 1977 Lone Pine International after about 15 years as Women's World Champion" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "midst more rule changes that may have made it more difficult for her to obtain the title in the future" — what change did they make in the rules?
    • The source doesn't say. It just says that the impending rule changes played a role. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and demonstrated that women could achieve GM norms from a very young age." — WP:POV ... we'll need attribution as to whose opinion is this
    • Which part do you think is POV? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entire part. There are quite a few sentences in this article which have opinion written as facts in Wikipedia's voice. For instance, Polgar sisters winning GM title is a fact, but their success demonstrating "that women could achieve GM norms from a very young age" is an opinion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rephrased to "began fulfilling the requirements for the Grandmaster title from a relatively young age". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the age of 15 years, 4 months, and 28 days" — do we need to be so specific?
  • "the next century saw a substantial influx of new female Grandmasters" — suggesting to rephrase a bit more neutrally
  • "At some point by 2003, FIDE changed their" → "In 2003, FIDE changed their"
    • It's not necessarily 2003. It might have been 2003, or it might have been before. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elo rating system" — pipe 'system' in the link
  • "Name : Player's name", "Birth date : Player's birth date", "Age : Player's current age", etc. — I'd expect that reader already knows what those terms mean.
    • I agree, but it's just for completeness. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, of all those terms explaining the headers, only "Title date", "Peak rating", and "Title app" need to be explained. That doesn't need a separate table. Those 3/4 headers can have a footnote against them to be more specifically explained. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't agree. You also need to explain that "Federation" is the current one (plus an explanation for the notes), why "Award year" can have a different year than "Title date", that "Title age" is based on the title date and not the award year, and "WWC" wouldn't be clear without explanation (and same for the notes). That's 7/11 that need explanation. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references in the table should be center aligned
    • Is that a requirement? I don't think it would be consistent with the rest of the table. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if there is any guideline, but this is a well established precedent among featured lists (1, 2, 3, etc.) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#6 and Ref#50 doesn't point to any citation
  • norms, Elo rating, FIDE rating, performance rating : these terms are linked twice in the prose.
    • These are confusing terms, and I feel like they are important enough that they need to be linked in the sections where the reader needs to understand them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– 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]
          • Very well. With no other issues found, I support this nomination for FL. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:43, 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?
    • That's a good point. I did consider both of those things when creating the article. My main rationale for not capitalizing was to copy List of chess grandmasters. I will ask them about their rationale. I think "chess" is necessary because Grandmaster is a disambiguation term. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got a quick reply that I think is correct. They referred to MOS:JOBTITLES, in which it is not one of the capitalized cases for two reasons: it is preceded by a modifier (or rather two modifiers: "female chess"), and also along the same lines of what I elaborate on below with regard to the abbreviations. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judit Polgár has a diacritic which appears to be missing in the lead/caption.
    • I think that's an issue with the other article. (Neither of her sisters' articles use the diacretic in the title.) I'll see if I can get that article moved to remove the diacritic. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having looked at more sources, the diacretic is more common than I thought, so I'm backtracking on that and made the change to Judit Polgár as you suggested. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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"?
    • I don't know the exact year. I have the FIDE handbook from 2003 that shows the rule was in place then, but I don't have the previous handbooks, so it could have been earlier. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
    • They should be separate articles. I will get around to moving it soon. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
    • I wanted to include it here because I think the term is much more relevant to this section than the previous one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
    • I changed it. (I had used the abbreviations because I wanted to keep the table less wide, and to align the years in the date columns.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • I wanted to keep the table more compact (in line with most tables, I would think?). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me the ext link which should show me all the female GMs from FIDE website doesn't work at all.
    • It works now. The old version of the FIDE website was down yesterday. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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
  • Is it possible to have a ref for notes C and D?
    • C is covered by the ref at the end of the sentence in which it appears. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, I copied the ref over to the note, only because I don't think this is immediately obvious, so we might as well make it clear. This also avoids a well-intentioned user adding a "citation needed" tag there in the future. Aza24 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think D (and the related E) are too basic to need references. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked a few, no issues. Happy to do a formal spot check if requested by the nom, coords or others. Aza24 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_female_chess_grandmasters/archive1&oldid=1096990759"