Talk:Vera Menchik/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bruce leverett (talk · contribs) 03:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * "... active up until her death" -- how about "... active until her death".
 * "... active up until her death" -- how about "... active until her death".

I have been scratching my head over the expression "master level" (with or without hyphen). It is vague and subject to multiple interpretations, but sometimes there is nothing better, especially when we are describing players in that era, when there were no FIDE titles and no widely applied rating systems. When Tanner quotes the BCM saying that Scarborough 1928 was Menchik's "first appearance in the ranks of the masters", you are surely correct to quote or closely paraphrase him -- Wikipedia is supposed to depend on its sources. But in the third paragraph of the article, when you say "She was the only woman competing at the master level", this is both understating and overstating her achievement. Repeat invitations to the Hastings Premier in the 1930's, let alone Carlsbad 1929 or Moscow 1935, are beyond what just any "master" could have done. On the other hand, Graf played in what might be called "master" events, so Menchik wasn't the only one.


 * I believe Tanner and some other sources state that Menchik competed at the master level. I couldn't find any source that said the same about Graf. (If I had, I would have wrote Menchik and Graf were the only women competing at the master level, and introduced Graf in that manner.) The other sense that Graf wasn't a master-level player was that she lived long enough to potentially earn the IM (or GM) title but didn't receive it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, Negele says, regarding Margate 1935, "In my opinion, this was the best result Sonja Graf ever achieved in a men’s tournament – demonstrating a playing strength of a master." But I am inclined to agree with you anyway.  For the purpose of writing the introductory paragraphs about Menchik, one doesn't have to compare Menchik's whole career with one good result by her rival.  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I interpreted master level as players who received master titles from FIDE or were at that level. The players of this era only could have received GM or IM titles. By master level, I mean Menchik regularly played in tournaments featuring loosely at least half the players being IMs or GMs (or IM-strength or GM-strength). My impression was that this was also in some sense the top level as even tournaments like Carlsbad and Moscow had some players besides Menchik who were only IMs or IM-strength. (In other words, I didn't think there was a tournament level just for GMs consistently available at the time.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Point taken -- the chess scene was so much smaller then, that even events like Carlsbad and Moscow had non-GM's. I complained about "master level" being vague and subject to multiple interpretations, and I still believe that, but I will go along with it here, and I'll be happy.  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that when you write "open tournament", either in the lead paragraphs or later in the article, you mean a tournament in which both men and women can play. But that is not the only definition, or the most common definition, for that phrase. I was startled to see Ramsgate 1929 described as an "open tournament", when in fact it was invitational, which in my own parlance is the opposite of "open". You need either to explicitly clarify this, or to somehow rewrite to avoid using "open tournament". Tanner at some point uses "mixed-gender tournaments" -- I am not entirely happy with that formulation, but at least it's unambiguous.


 * This also bothers me more generally, but I don't think it's as much of an issue for Menchik in particular because she played in hardly any Swiss tournaments. I'll add a footnote to clarify. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that mixed-gender is unambiguous. Some people for instance view e.g. Nepo vs. Ding as a mixed-gender match because both men and women are allowed to compete. I don't think a tournament is mixed-gender unless it requires the field to contain both men and women, which wasn't the case for any of the tournaments Menchik played in. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence about the Sonja Graf match in the second of the lead paragraphs has several problems:

"When Menchik was already a five-time WWC ..." -- you should already have given the dates for the first five WWC tournaments.


 * Did you have a reason for wanting to include the dates? I don't think anything important can be gleaned from including them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right, giving the dates would be too much detail for the lead paragraphs. I thought that between the mention of the WWC's in the first paragraph, and the mention in the second paragraph, confusion might arise, but your changes have improved that situation.  Bruce leverett (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"... first-ever Women's World Championship match" -- it is very odd to use "first-ever" here, though it is technically correct. After Graf played her WWC match with Menchik, the WWC immediately went back to a tournament format, and stayed that way until the early 1950's. I would recommend just saying, "she played and won a WWC match in 1937 against Sonja Graf ..."
 * That's a good point about it being stand-alone. I changed it to "Late in her career, Menchik played and won a lone Women's World Championship match against Sonja Graf" and made an earlier mention that the World Championships were typically round-robin at the time. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"the consensus second-best female player of her era" -- how about "the other leading female player of her era" or perhaps "the other female chess professional of her era". "Consensus" is an odd word to use in this context -- adjectives like "second-best" are usually derived from tournament standings, not from consensus, and Graf didn't finish second until 1939.
 * Changed to "the next-leading female player of her era" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of Ramsgate 1929: "a ½ point behind" -> "a half point behind".
 * I think "½" can be read as "half"? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am used to seeing either "a half point behind" or "half a point behind" or (less commonly) "½ point behind". But if the chess literature you are looking at is doing it your way, go ahead, I suppose.  Bruce leverett (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the section about 1930-32: Please straighten out the references to the two Hastings tournaments to be in chronological order. The jumping back and forth between the 1930-31 tournament and the 1931-32 tournament is very confusing.


 * Rearranged. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your reorganization of 1930-1932, and your fixes for the other issues, are very helpful. Thanks!  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Tanner (p. 94) considers the 1931 BCF Congress Major Open to be one of Menchik's best results. Why not quote or paraphrase this opinion, and also, perhaps, set the description of that tournament into a separate paragraph, to highlight it.


 * I split off the non-Christmas Congress results into a separate paragraph. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

In that section, this sentence: "The Major section was held in conjunction with the national championship for high-level international players" needs to be reorganized, so that "for high-level international players" does not appear to modify "the national championship".


 * Changed to "and was for high-level international players". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

In the discussion of Menchik's matches with Graf, the word "official" is used repeatedly, denoting (I assume) a match for the WWC, whereas "unofficial" denotes a match that isn't for the WWC. This usage is copied from the article by Negele. But I would recommend that you not use "official" this way, as it is not self-explanatory. On the other hand, it is a good idea to emphasize that the 1934 match was not for the WWC, as apparently there has been some confusion on this point (one can still find sources that say it was for the WWC).


 * Changed "unofficial" to "informal". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Give the locations of the two Czechoslovak championships. The Podebrady tournament is still well-known as it was large and strong. So do not try to cover both tournaments in a single sentence. Also give the location of the B.C.F. Congress 1935. Chess literature generally identifies tournaments by their location and year, e.g. Yarmouth 1935, even if they are also identified by particular national championships or other championships.


 * Agreed, done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Tanner mentions (p. 295) that Mieses won a match from Gerald Abrahams at the age of 81 (that would have been in 1946). Mentioning this might be a good way of giving an idea of Mieses' strength at the time of his match with Menchik. When Tanner says that Mieses had been one of the top 10 players in the world, he gives an approximate year (1900), and you should too, as this is an important part of the assessment. On the other hand, mentioning that he later received the GM title doesn't add anything to the "top 10 in the world" assessment.


 * If the article was for a modern player who wasn't a GM, I would always mention the titles of key players they defeated. I can't do exactly that for this era, but I believe this is the equivalent. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The best handling of the opponents of a player like Menchik, who lived before FIDE awarded titles, but some of whose opponents lived long enough to be awarded titles, is something I hadn't considered before reviewing this article. I've never seen an article that does it this way; but Tanner spends a lot of time trying to evaluate Menchik's strength, and he leans heavily on the batch of titles issued in 1950, and Wikipedia is supposed to lean heavily on its sources.  I think that, for the purpose of this GA review, I should not object to the mention of those titles; it is only tangentially related to the GA criteria.  We can revisit this later, especially if other editors have their own ideas about how to describe Menchik's opponents.  Meanwhile, I still think you should mention that Mieses' best years were around the first decade of the 20th century.  Bruce leverett (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I added "around 1900" for when Mieses was a top ten player. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would expect the reader to be familiar with Gerald Abrahams, let alone his strength in a specific year. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to give the impression that Mieses was only good in 1900. I wanted to provide some impression that he was still reasonably good even at 77. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The GM title doesn't help with that. All GM titles, not just the first batch awarded in 1950, are for life; there are many players around with old GM titles who have long since ceased to play at GM level.


 * I'm not opposed to mentioning Mieses' GM title, and not the one for Sämisch either, but readers will have to do more Wikipedia searching to get an idea of the strength of either player. Looking at the articles on them, I see that Sämisch's best results were in the 1920's (this makes Menchik's win over him in 1929 look more impressive), while Mieses' best results were both before and after the turn of the century.  Bruce leverett (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Vera Menchik Club: "Max Euwe and George Thomas, both of whom had below-average records against Menchik by their standards, ..." -- "below-average" is not the right word. I would say that they both had negative lifetime scores (in tournament games) against Menchik. One could also say "lifetime minus scores". You may find another phrase that you prefer.
 * Changed to "negative scores". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I like your choice of Notable Games, and your treatment of them is correct and correctly sourced. May I suggest that you use another method, rather than quotation marks plus parentheses, to set off the annotations from the score. One possibility is using boldface for the score, plain type for the annotations, as in George H. D. Gossip and Gisela Kahn Gresser.


 * Thanks! I wasn't sure if that was allowed because of MOS:BOLD, albeit I think MOS:ITALICS (or any alternative) has the same potential issue. What do you think of italicizing the game moves instead of the annotations? I wanted to more emphasis on the annotations rather than the game moves, as I figured the average reader would find those easier to follow. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal Life section, Families subsection -- "Rufus worked as a pharmacist ..." -- use "Rufus Stevenson" here, it strikes me as too informal or personal to just use the given name.
 * Changed to "Stevenson". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead paragraphs should consist mainly of the things for which Menchik was notable (WP:LEAD). Background material, including everything about her birth and family, schooling, early chess and chess training/coaching, should be in the rest of the article (in this case the "Early life and background" section).  If I have to slog through all this background just to find out who she was and what she was famous for, my attention span will not be sufficient.
 * The lead paragraphs should consist mainly of the things for which Menchik was notable (WP:LEAD). Background material, including everything about her birth and family, schooling, early chess and chess training/coaching, should be in the rest of the article (in this case the "Early life and background" section).  If I have to slog through all this background just to find out who she was and what she was famous for, my attention span will not be sufficient.

The treatment of her notable accomplishments is good, but slightly disorganized. You mention her eight WWC wins in the first paragraph, but you only give two dates for them in the second paragraph, 1927 and 1937. I suggest that the two sentences about the WWC in the first paragraph be shortened to one, something like "She was the first Women's World Chess Champion, holding the title from 1927 until 1944." The part about "longest-reigning" and the comparison with Lasker do not belong in the first paragraph, or perhaps even in any of the lead paragraphs. The first paragraph of the article should not be a dry recitation of longevity statistics, nor a comparison with other notable chess players (whom the reader may not otherwise know about), but a positive and succinct description of the things she was, and is, notable for. It would be a good idea to summarize her standing against men in the first paragraph; for instance, something like "She was the first woman to compete successfully in international tournaments at master level", although in the comments above, I complain about the phrase "master level". So instead, maybe something like, "She held her own against the leading British players of the day, and competed successfully in international tournaments at the highest levels." Well, this may be rather stilted, you can perhaps do better.


 * In case you are wondering, your recent reorganization of these paragraphs looks satisfactory to me. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks! Then I'm not going to explain it, haha. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not know if there is a guideline for this, but I recommend that the "Death" and "Personal Life" sections come before the "Playing Style" and "Legacy" sections; that is what I have seen in other Wiki chess biographies.
 * I've seen both approaches used. I prefer this one because the playing style and legacy come right after her chess playing career, which is what they are related to. (They could even be the final sub-sections of the "Chess career" section, but I think that's less organized.) Putting personal life in the middle, I think it divides her chess career in half (the timeline before, and the rest after), and I think that makes it harder to follow. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Personal Life" section, which discusses how she made a living from chess, seems out of place here -- her career isn't her personal life, right? But I do not know of other Wikipedia chess biographies that discuss how the subject made his/her living from chess, so I can't suggest a better place to put it.
 * I re-ordered it so family is first, which is the way I had it originally before adding sub-section headers. If how she made a living was more significant or more detailed, I would split it off into its own section, but for Menchik I don't think it's substantial enough. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * Perhaps it would be in order to cite a source for her name, "Vera Francevna Mencikova". I see that it was given that way in a version of a biography by Denman.  Tanner spells the patronymic "Franceva".  The marriage certificate does not mention the patronymic.  Also, I have seen her married name used in some places (... Menchik Stevenson, but the death certificate just says "Vera Stevenson").  I assume you have agonized over MOS:FULLNAME and MOS:BIRTHNAME.
 * Perhaps it would be in order to cite a source for her name, "Vera Francevna Mencikova". I see that it was given that way in a version of a biography by Denman.  Tanner spells the patronymic "Franceva".  The marriage certificate does not mention the patronymic.  Also, I have seen her married name used in some places (... Menchik Stevenson, but the death certificate just says "Vera Stevenson").  I assume you have agonized over MOS:FULLNAME and MOS:BIRTHNAME.

It is a stretch to call Maroczy a "past contender for the World Championship". He negotiated for a match with Lasker, but it never came off.


 * I intended to use "contender" to indicate he was "in contention" to play for the World Championship. Had he actually played for it, I would have used "challenger". Do you think using "contender" implies "challenger"? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would not have guessed that this was a meaningful semantic distinction. Besides, the whole business of negotiating with Lasker and then not being able to raise the stakes is somewhat embarrassing; if we are trying to describe what a strong player he was, find some other turn of phrase ("... leading grandmaster around the turn of the century" --hmm, this is sounding like Mieses).  By the way, I complained elsewhere about describing her coaching/training in the lead paragraphs; we only have to argue about how to describe Maroczy if you are going to move this description into the body of the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It's hinted at somewhere else in the review, but I left in just Maroczy and took out the description of who he was from the lead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The use of inline citations is impeccable. When you cite two separate pages of Tanner, you can combine them in one footnote. For instance, in discussing the London Girls' Championships, you cite Tanner p. 12 and Tanner pp. 38-39. You could just cite Tanner pp. 12, 38-39.


 * Given what impeccable means, I wasn't sure if you were asking for a change. But if you were, I think they want it split like this. It helps for repeat citations to the same sets of pages in particular. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Whereas Tanner says that Menchik's prize of 8 pounds at Stratford 1925 was worth $543 in 2016 dollars, the article says that it was worth about 490 in 2022 pounds. I think that Wikipedia has templates that can be used to help with currency conversion to present-day approximate values. I will try to look this up, could you do so too?


 * I already used the template (it's called Inflation). That's where the value of £490 comes from. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, duh. Very good. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The Hastings 1927-1928 Major Open A was not the "next edition" of the Hastings 1926-1927 Major Reserves, it was a higher level section (which is why she didn't do as well). I would assume she qualified for the Major Open by winning the previous Major Reserves (but I haven't looked that up).


 * Changed to "The following year at the tournament at the end of 1927" to avoid the implication about her performance. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's an interesting tidbit. Ludwig Rellstab, who lost a game to Menchik in the 1927-1928 Hastings Major Open A, was missed by Tanner in his table of Appendix 7. It's important because he was, or later became, quite a strong player. He was German champion in 1942, was awarded the IM title in 1950, and played in some Olympiads in the 1950's, according to his Wiki biography. OK, this is not directly relevant to your article, but I just had to mention it, since I just noticed it.


 * Yeah, the book isn't perfect. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion of Scarborough 1928 should cite Tanner, p. 43 (or perhaps pp. 43-47).


 * Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The claim that Carlsbad 1929 was "was the strongest chess tournament since the First World War" is extravagant. I realize that it is almost a direct quote from Tanner. But having a source doesn't give us license for MOS:PUFFERY. Readers will instantly compare Carlsbad with New York 1924, Moscow 1925, New York 1927, and likely several others.


 * I think Tanner means it comprised the most top players compared to those other ones. I changed the wording from ", featuring nearly all of the world's top players" to "in the sense that it featured nearly all of the world's top players" to clarify that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of modifying this by removing the text I didn't like. If you have a problem with this, we can argue about it more, of course. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I like it! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"Sämisch was one of the inaugural players to receive the Grandmaster title.[30][31]" -- A couple of problems with this: (1) Sämisch's GM title was awarded 21 years later; if it is desirable to mention something that he did to indicate his strength, it should be something more nearly contemporary. (2) The two citations are to Tanner describing Paris 1929 and Barcelona 1929. So they belong on the previous sentence, not on the sentence about Sämisch. (And besides, those pages in Tanner don't mention Sämisch's GM title.)


 * Same comment as others on the titles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Tanner, on page 13, says that Menchik won the Hastings C.C. championship with 11½-½, but on page 80 he gives a score of +13-0=1, that is, 13½-½.


 * Good catch, removed as it's not so important. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The citation for the Britain vs. Holland match and Brighton 1938 mistakenly gives Tanner pp. 162-170; it should be Tanner pp. 196-197. It would be reasonable to have separate citations for these two events.


 * Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion leading to the conclusion that Menchik was "generally recognized as an IM-strength level player" is well done. It is correctly supported by citation of Tanner, and leaves off all the strange stuff about ratings retrospectively calculated by Elo, Sonas, etc. I appreciate how well Tanner himself has supported this retrospective evaluation, about which there is always bound to be skepticism, and how much work he put into compiling her scores against other players.


 * Thanks! Yeah, this is one thing in particular I think he did very clearly. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Women's chess section: Menchik did not reach the Premier section of Hastings in 1928; she reached the Premier Reserve section. She reached the Premier section in the 1929-30 event.


 * Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"Part of the reason Menchik was invited to the Moscow tournament was the hope that her appearance in the event would help bolster Soviet women's chess" -- this is nearly an exact duplicate of a sentence in the section about 1933-37.


 * Kept the legacy sentence, and removed the other one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Tanner's claim that Bikova's book "is something of a Soviet propaganda piece of the times" is not particularly relevant, and you don't need to cite it or quote it.


 * Removed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Footnote 105, a citation of the World Chess Hall of Fame website that doesn't link directly to Menchik, looks unnecessary, since footnote 103 links directly to Menchik's entry.


 * It's to cover the inductee number. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal Life section, Families subsection: Tanner (p. 235) says that the pairing system used for the WWC 1937 tournament was the "Monrad" system, not the Swiss system.
 * Hmm, do you know if the Monrad system is considered a type of Swiss system or is it a different system altogether? The only mention of a Monrad system on Wikipedia is in the Swiss system article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good question. In Swiss-system tournament, in the last paragraph, it says, "The Monrad pairing system is widely used in Scrabble and is known as the King Of The Hill format. It is considered to be distinct from the Swiss pairing system."  But is it a type of Swiss system?  If not, what is it doing in that article?  I suspect that both Swiss and Monrad existed for years, perhaps under different names, before they became well-known, and neither of them was a "type of" the other.  Anyway, maybe the most helpful thing to do here is to use a Wikilink to link "Monrad pairing system" to that subsection.  Bruce leverett (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "Monrad variant of a Swiss system" and linked Monrad variant as such. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * Legacy section, "Achievements" subsection: In the paragraph that starts with "Menchik was the first and only woman accepted as a master in the period she was competing", you soon get bogged down in a discussion of Sonja Graf, including who her mentors were and when she first appeared on the scene.  This is a bad sign -- this article isn't supposed to be about Graf.  The problem is that the "first and only woman" claim is stated in such a way as to invite comparisons with Graf.  The source for the claim is the article by Foley and Upham, but looking at that article, I didn't see a claim with exactly that wording; they say, correctly, "it would be many years until other women were able to reach her level".  Restate the claim in such a way that (1) you don't have to discuss Graf; and (2) you don't go beyond what your source says.
 * I shortened the description of Graf's coaches. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The main point of the paragraph was to compare Menchik to Graf (and other women), so I did want to discuss Graf at least a bit. The main sentence I was drawing from in the source was "However, what was more remarkable was that she was accepted into the sphere of men’s chess as a master in her own right, a feat which no woman had done before or has done since." Do you think that suffices? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What you now have is a reasonable compromise; the level of description of Graf is not excessive.
 * BTW the game in which Menchik lost to Elaine Saunders is described as a "casual game" although it was recorded and published. It isn't in Tanner's table on page 293. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * b. (focused):
 * Legacy section, "Achievements" subsection: In the paragraph that starts with "Menchik was the first and only woman accepted as a master in the period she was competing", you soon get bogged down in a discussion of Sonja Graf, including who her mentors were and when she first appeared on the scene.  This is a bad sign -- this article isn't supposed to be about Graf.  The problem is that the "first and only woman" claim is stated in such a way as to invite comparisons with Graf.  The source for the claim is the article by Foley and Upham, but looking at that article, I didn't see a claim with exactly that wording; they say, correctly, "it would be many years until other women were able to reach her level".  Restate the claim in such a way that (1) you don't have to discuss Graf; and (2) you don't go beyond what your source says.
 * I shortened the description of Graf's coaches. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The main point of the paragraph was to compare Menchik to Graf (and other women), so I did want to discuss Graf at least a bit. The main sentence I was drawing from in the source was "However, what was more remarkable was that she was accepted into the sphere of men’s chess as a master in her own right, a feat which no woman had done before or has done since." Do you think that suffices? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What you now have is a reasonable compromise; the level of description of Graf is not excessive.
 * BTW the game in which Menchik lost to Elaine Saunders is described as a "casual game" although it was recorded and published. It isn't in Tanner's table on page 293. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The main point of the paragraph was to compare Menchik to Graf (and other women), so I did want to discuss Graf at least a bit. The main sentence I was drawing from in the source was "However, what was more remarkable was that she was accepted into the sphere of men’s chess as a master in her own right, a feat which no woman had done before or has done since." Do you think that suffices? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What you now have is a reasonable compromise; the level of description of Graf is not excessive.
 * BTW the game in which Menchik lost to Elaine Saunders is described as a "casual game" although it was recorded and published. It isn't in Tanner's table on page 293. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

In the discussion of Maribor, it is not good practice to state the past and future achievements of Menchik's leading opponents as if they were credentials. Instead, Tanner just says "five strong internationally recognized masters." You don't need to quote this, but it is an example of the right way of giving credit to the strength of her opponents. This isn't an article about Pirc, Steiner, Rejfíř, Asztalos, Vidmar Jr., and Spielmann, it's an article about Menchik. Readers who want to know more about those six guys can follow the Wikilinks.


 * This is along the same lines as "I would always mention the titles of key players a modern player has defeated". I changed the description of Spielmann to "regarded as of IM-strength" instead of the Capablanca comment to reflect that.
 * This is OK, but two suggestions: (1) Spielmann would be considered GM strength (but we should say "grandmaster", not "GM", and likewise "international master", not "IM").  See the entry for him in Tanner's table, p. 292; (2) Spielmann finished tied for 2nd at Carlsbad 1929.   This makes the Menchik's Maribor result look even more impressive.  Also, he was one of the six players invited to New York 1927. (Of course, all players have good tournaments and bad tournaments, certainly including Spielmann.)
 * Ah, that was an error on my part. I meant to take his strength from that table. In that case, I removed the description of who he was to avoid needed to describe that extra context. I think just mentioning him should indicate he was at least as notable as the others who are described. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On a tangential note, our article about Spielmann is skimpy and poorly organized, needs lots of work. I was prompted to look on Amazon, and found a very recently published hardcover biography of him, published just a month and a half ago.  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, why did Tanner say "five"? He must have been including Stupan or Drezga. Oddly enough, I think he meant Drezga, although Drezga had a worse tournament; there is a Wiki article about him, which says that he had some good results while playing in France in the 1920's.
 * I think I also was wondering about that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Tanner assesses as "the two most well known portraits of Menchik" the one on page 11 (when she was 16), and the one on page 17 (when she was roughly 31). The article should use both of them, because they are both well-known, and because they are quite different from each other.  Either one could be in the infobox; I guess you have replaced one with the other, I don't know why, but in any case, we should have both.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Tanner assesses as "the two most well known portraits of Menchik" the one on page 11 (when she was 16), and the one on page 17 (when she was roughly 31). The article should use both of them, because they are both well-known, and because they are quite different from each other.  Either one could be in the infobox; I guess you have replaced one with the other, I don't know why, but in any case, we should have both.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Tanner assesses as "the two most well known portraits of Menchik" the one on page 11 (when she was 16), and the one on page 17 (when she was roughly 31). The article should use both of them, because they are both well-known, and because they are quite different from each other.  Either one could be in the infobox; I guess you have replaced one with the other, I don't know why, but in any case, we should have both.
 * Tanner assesses as "the two most well known portraits of Menchik" the one on page 11 (when she was 16), and the one on page 17 (when she was roughly 31). The article should use both of them, because they are both well-known, and because they are quite different from each other.  Either one could be in the infobox; I guess you have replaced one with the other, I don't know why, but in any case, we should have both.


 * I would love to use it, but to be able to include it in the article, it needs to be in the public domain in the country of origin (the UK) and the US. It is in the public domain in the UK, but not in the US. It will become public domain in the US eventually through "This work was published before January 1, 1928 and it is anonymous or pseudonymous due to unknown authorship. It is in the public domain in the United States as well as countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 95 years or fewer since publication.", but that won't happen for another five years. In 2029, we can add it back! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you comment on this copyright issue? I see that you have been involved (in the distant past) in using the photo of Vera Menchik from the 1930's in the infobox of that article; and that you are more knowledgeable about copyrights than I am. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The photo of Euwe in the section about the Vera Menchik club is poorly chosen, because it includes an irrelevant person, who is distracting. Moreover, the person is unidentified in the caption, and even the information accompanying the image doesn't positively identify her, though it suggests she might be his daughter. Find a more suitable photo of Euwe.
 * I originally wanted to use a photo from around the time Menchik defeated Euwe, but there were none available. The only good usable photos are from much later in his career. I'm fairly certain it is Euwe's daughter based on other pictures that are definitely with his daughter, but I didn't caption it that way because the source did not identify her. Regardless, I think it would be appropriate to use a photo of Euwe playing chess with a girl in an article about a female chess player. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't complain about the quality of the photo, and it is cute how he is discussing some position with his daughter, but it is super distracting to have a photo in which this girl is practically the star of the show, but the caption doesn't even say that she's his daughter, let alone her name. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I could label it as his daughter. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Overall, it seems that GA is well within reach.
 * Overall, it seems that GA is well within reach.

This looks like a very thorough review! I've started addressing some points, and will let you know when I've finished. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, I became busy in real life. I should be able to get back to it in a few days! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's all of the original comments. Now onto the comments on the comments. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't forget my comment on the digression about Graf under Legacy / Achievements. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I addressed that one and I think I addressed all other sub-comments. It wasn't as many as I thought. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am now scratching my head over the "pass" instructions. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)