Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/44th Chess Olympiad/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 July 2023 [1].

---

44th Chess Olympiad

Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a team chess tournament with global participation in the spirit of the Olympic Games that took place in Chennai, India in August 2022. After the article attained the GA status, some brief sections have been merged with longer ones, so it stands to reason to believe that it meets all criteria for an FA in the field of sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

• Hi Kiril Simeonovski, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
• Suggest adding alt text
• File:44th_Chess_Olympiad_2022_stamp_of_India.jpg: is there a source to support the given licensing?
• File:Chess_Olympiad_2022_official_logo.png is missing copyright owner. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've made changes in line with the suggestions. I couldn't find a source to support the licencing for the postal stamp, but the same licence is used for all Indian postal stamps (see the stamps in this category).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

Good to see a chess article at FAC! I'm reviewing this with one eye on WCC commentary, rooting for Ding. I'll do some spotchecks, in reference to Gog the Mild's comment. Reference numbers as of Special:Permalink/1148495851.

Spotchecks: #2, #3, #8, #10, #13, #17, #21, #23, #50, #96, #101, #105, #115.

Source comments:

• TASS is generally unreliable (RSP entry) as a Russian government propaganda outlet. Source #111 is acceptable as verifying a Russian Chess Federation statement, but other uses need removal.
• Other than this, I'm happy that the sources given are reliable for the facts in the article, after some investigation into the sources I haven't seen before. Primary sources are largely acceptable for simple statements of facts or official statements.
• I can't see a source for "Both sections set team participation records" or the repetition in the body, "both records for a Chess Olympiad" and "also a record". Reference #13 says vague promotional things like "Clearly, this scale and magnitude ... is going to be unprecedented" and Chess-Results doesn't seem to state the record directly. Reference #50 (not cited inline) does say the previous record was 179 countries, so perhaps the claim could be changed to this record.
• Reference #23 doesn't say "Only one bid was submitted"; perhaps #24 implies this by only listing one bid in the appendix. (Though unreliable for this fact, TASS implies Argentina and Slovakia did bid in some way.)
• Reference #115 doesn't say "The Chinese team ... won gold medals in both events at the 2018 Chess Olympiad".
• Formatting issues pose a 2(c) problem. You should consider what parameters to include for each source e.g. URL, title, work or publisher, date or access-date; and whether they should be in italics or linked. For instance, source #46 and #118 lacks a mention of work/publisher; #51 and #52 have neither a date nor an access-date; The Times of India is linked in #92 but not in #43 or #100; is it "ANI" or "Asian News International" etc. These are examples but the whole reference list will need a run through. Some of the data is also incorrect, such as the "author" 'Team, BS Web' in #29, 'ANI' in #32, "official website" in #46.
• I can't access source #61. Archiving may be worthwhile.

Other comments:

• "The olympiad was initially ..." – Should "Olympiad" be capitalised for consistency?
• "1,737; 937 in the Open" – I think a colon is more accurate than a semi-colon (the latter half is a breakdown of the 1,737 number, not a standalone clause).

— Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review. I've run through all the references and made corrections on the formatting (e.g. replacing "work" with "publisher", correcting author data, linking to the publisher on the first mention etc.). Additionally, I was able to find other reliable sources to replace TASS as a source, as well as to support the claims that were not literally stated in the previous sources. Those that could not be found, such as "only one bid was submitted", were rephrased in a meaningful way. Finally, I've replaced "olympiad" with "Olympiad" and put a colon in line with the other comments (BTW, both Nepo and Ding are gentle and good players, so it's difficult to choose one).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Better-looking references and most issues are solved. A couple of follow-ups: I think the new source on records is about overall countries/teams, not necessarily that there was a record for Open and Women's sections considered separately. The new Ruchess source doesn't seem to verify the sentence The president of the Russian Chess Federation Andrey Filatov had stated earlier the same day that the two cities would likely co-host the event. Sources #119 and #123 need a publisher. — Bilorv (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've found a new source in which Filatov's statement is explained in greater detail and worked it out a little bit in the text. On the record-breaking number of participants in both sections, the cited source says “We have 185 countries registered with 186 teams in the open section and 156 in the Women’s section. Batumi Olympiad had set a record with 179 countries with 184 teams in Open section and 150 in Women’s section., which I thought would be sufficient.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean on the records quote. Thanks for the improvements! — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Support, particularly on sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Review by DaxServer

Hi. I performed a quick ce but hasn't done much of source checks. Here are some pointers for the moment:

• "the United States were regarded" ... either "the United States was regarded" or "the United States team was regarded" or "the players representing the United States were regarded" - I think it's the first?
• Split the |author= in citations to |first= and |last=
• There're some redundancies in the form of duplications, but I gotta go sleep now, will re-review them later

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've replaced "author" with "first" and "last" everywhere. As for the use of the country teams in plural form, this is because the article is written in British English where it's the common form (for instance, The Guardian reported Uzbekistan's victory with "Uzbekistan win", so it's totally acceptable to use "the United States were regarded").--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• MOS:REFLINK - citations are standalone entities, I'd suggest linking publishers in all citations where there is an article. For the authors who have articles, link them using |author-link=

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I've added a couple of new links (e.g. Leonard Barden). The publishers are linked on the first mention but not every time they appear per MOS:OVERLINK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

I'm pleased to see a chess article here. I'm afraid I have to do this review in chunks. This is what I have so far:

• I have never seen references used in the lead. I can't see any hard rule that says it is not allowed, but it is adding unnecessary clutter to the only part of the article most people read.
• Not sure about the opening sentence. It would be better if it mentioned that it is an international tournament between countries.
• I assume the players on a team are chosen by their national chess association. Would it therefore not good to link the country names to the national association pages? For example, the Netherlands. I'm saying this because there is an inconsistency: country names are mostly not linked at all inline (although for some reason Belarus is), mostly linked in the table of participating countries (although some like Canada and Mexico are not).
• More link issues: Moscow should be linked in lead and its first occurrence in main text. And Russian Chess Federation should be linked.
• the link label won in 2006 is not a strong one. Perhaps rephrase to "having previously won the 37th Chess Olympiad in 2006."
• It may sound odd but the idea is that you have to introduce everything again after the lead. So FIDE needs to be explained again in the Bid section. And linked again. See for comparison 2014 FIFA World Cup final. I would recommend to rename the first section Background and give a general overview of what the Olympiad is, before you talk about the bidding.
• I'm not quite following the arguments of why it was moved to Moscow, but at the very least I'd say that the statement "which was chiefly organised in Moscow" is dubious. 11 Russian cities were used.
• The positioning of the sentence "Khanty-Mansiysk was to ... and physically disabled players" is a bit odd, with most of it coming back to the first factor, explaining what Chess Paralympics means.
• That same sentence leaves me wondering: was the Chess Paralympics event also moved to Moscow? The current phrasing is ambiguous.
• Because earlier "inaugural" was used, you don't need to say "first ever" again.
• "Shortly after this announcement, the AICF .." --> what is AICF?
• "On 15 March 2022, FIDE .." --> only link the first occurrence in the body. FIDE was mentioned before
• "top 28 boards in the open section" --> In the lead you have a capital for Open

More soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a note on lead citations: per MOS:CITELEAD, The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. It is definitely not unheard of to have citations throughout the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That is certainly true for normal articles, but is it for Featured Articles? Other reviewers more experienced than me are better positioned to provide a view of what is FA standard. In the 100 or so FAC reviews I have done, I've never come across a citation-laden one. And rightfully so, as it adds unnecessary clutter. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the rest of my comments:

• with all these rituals borrowed from the Olympics, I do think the article needs to address, albeit briefly and in the Background section, the relationship with the Olympic Games, or lack thereof. Is the IOC involved at all? Is chess the only sport that has an Olympics clone?
• The five-time World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand passed ... --> Anand passed ... (he's already been introduced)
• The claims about Rwanda, Pakistan, and Netherlands Antilles all need references. The current 54 reference does not back these up.
• can you explain your choice of Afghanistan's flag?
• list of participating countries should be alphabetical: Cameroon is out of order. Check others
• "weather conditions,[61] Teimour Radjabov withdrew ..." --> grammatically not quite ok
• "Viswanathan Anand described the team .." --> Anand described the team
• and Anish Giri --> a bit of introduction would be good, for example: Dutch Grandmaster Anish Giri. Was he playing himself? Would be good to add.
• from Fabiano Caruana, who suffered three losses, and Levon Aronian --> only refer to people by their last name once they have already been introduced
• 7½ out of a possible 8 points (7/8 .. --> should that not be 7½/8 ?
• why is there no dSB score for India-2 in the rankings table?
• Oliwia Kiołbasa had the highest individual score in the Women's event, playing for Poland on board three, who scored 9½/11 --> grammar
• (1961–78) --> a bit too cryptic perhaps, as it could be read as years of birth and death. Perhaps just say something along the lines of "world champion between 1961 and 1978"
• on an official YouTube channel, --> on FIDE's official YouTube channel
• FIDE followed a recommendation by the International Olympic Committee to suspend Russia and Belarus from participation in international tournaments,[59] including the Olympiad. --> this to me suggests that the IOC explicitely mentioned the Olympiad in their recommendation. Did they?

Sorry for the delay. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for the detailed review. I'll elaborate the improvements of the article in the following bullet points:

• The "Bidding process" section has been renamed "Background" and expanded with an introductory paragraph on the history of the Chess Olympiad and its relation with the Olympic Games. Note that chess is recognised as a sport by the International Olympic Committee (see this source), and this is why FIDE followed IOC's recommendation to ban Russia and Belarus from participating.
• The list of participating teams has been carefully checked and links have been added to the missing nations. As participating teams at the Chess Olympiad represent nations and wave their flags (see Uzbek's victory celebration), it's more appropriate to link to countries instead of national chess federations (an optimal solution would be to link to Olympic-style country articles such as 'Afghanistan at the 44th Chess Olympiad', but the Chess Olympiads are not yet at the same level as the Olympics so that the existence of such articles is justified). Given that the Taliban flag doesn't have international recognition and Afghanistan participated under the tricolour flag, an explanatory note has been added. Better references have also been added to cite Pakistan's and Rwanda's withdrawals, as well as to support Netherlands Antilles' participation.
• The information on the move from Khanty-Mansiysk to Moscow has been precisified and Filatov's statement on the reasons for the move has been clarified (no need to mention that the FIFA World Cup was chiefly organised in Moscow).
• All references have been removed from the introduction and moved to the article's main body.
• All comments pertaining to style, minor errors and ambiguities have been accepted and appropriately dealt with.

Apologies now from my side for the delayed response.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Good to see the article starting with some background information. A few more comments:

• After the tournament was organised on irregular intervals until World War II, it has been held biannually since 1950. --> Not quite precise as it leaves a gap between 1939-1950, so something along the lines of "Up until 1950 the tournament was organised at irregular intervals. From then on it has been held biannually."
• in Emmen in 1957 as a separate event --> this makes me wonder if it perhaps would not be better to consistently refer to the 44th Olympiad Women's tournament as "section" rather than "event". So keep "event" reserved for when it was separate.
• Bidding for the Olympiad and the simultaneous FIDE --> explain what FIDE stands for (the fact you already did this in the lead does not count). And link FIDE.
• The current AICF President, Sanjay Kapoor was the president of the Organising Committee for the 44th Chess Olympiad, and AICF Secretary, Bharat Singh Chauhan was the Tournament Director --> so many capitals .. I would try to drop a few: Sanjay Kapoor, who later became president of AICF, was the president of the organising committee for the 44th Chess Olympiad, and AICF's secretary, Bharat Singh Chauhan, was the tournament director.
• who will contest the World Chess Championship 2023 --> this should now be past tense
• blundered a loss --> not seen this expression before. "blundered a piece" I have seen.
• with Former Women's World Champion --> not so sure about the capital F. Later on, in Gaprindashvili Trophy, you have a small f yourself

I promise these are my last comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comments. I've taken care of them all. Concerning the Women's Chess Olympiad, I added a link to the first edition, and slightly modified the sentence without "separate event" (changing "event" to "section" would initiate renaming articles of events at past Olympiads, such as Women's event at the 43rd Chess Olympiad).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: - do you feel that your concerns have been satisfactorily addressed? Hog Farm _Talk 20:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Sportsfan77777

Some quick comments:

• "Open event", "Women's event", "Open section", and "Women's section" probably shouldn't be capitalized in most if not all instances.
• The "Best players" section of the infobox should include all board gold medal winners, not just the top performers. The Olympiad used to have an award for the overall top performer in each of the open and women's sections, but as far as I know, they got rid of that and now just award medals to the top performers on every board.
• "Chess Paralympics" <<<=== I believe it's called the "Chess Olympiad for People with Disabilities".
• Is it normal to have so many paying spectators? If not, there should be some comments about that.
• In this sentence: "Other medal contenders were expected to be Poland[93][71] France,[94] Azerbaijan, the United States and Germany.[75]", the sourcing doesn't make sense. If you want to link to the teams on chess results, why not link all of them? And why aren't both news articles at the end of the sentence instead of one randomly in the middle?
• There are a lot of ", with" issues. See WP:PLUSING.
• "but blundered a loss to Nodirbek Abdusattorov in their match with the Uzbek team, which proved decisive" <<<=== "blundered a loss" is not proper terminology, and the sentence doesn't make it clear what was "decisive" about it.
• If Gukesh's 8/8 start was mentioned, so should Kiolbasa's 9/9 start.
• "Jana Schneider of Germany who played as a reserve player before scoring 9/10 points" <<<=== "before" is not grammatically correct.
• The FIDE Congress encompassed other things than just the presidential election. It would be more appropriate to have some sort of brief summary, rather than focusing only on the election. Less importantly, I might also suggest the present version has too much detail on the election.
• The Year of Women in Chess came up in a few ways at the Olympiad, but there is no mention of it.

I don't know if I'll get to the whole article. This is just what I came across at first glance. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Kiril Simeonovski Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I've already gone through some of the points and plan to complete the changes very soon (probably by tomorrow).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: I've made changes in the article based on your comments and recommendations. I think it's useful to keep the "Open event" and "Women's event" capitalised because these are the names of the two main tournaments (we even have Open event at the 44th Chess Olympiad and Women's event at the 44th Chess Olympiad as separate articles).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: Just a kind reminder that I've made changes in the article some time ago. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I might have time to review the whole article towards the end of this week, but that would still be only two prose reviews. You need at least one more. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Sportsfan77777, how's it looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I actually have some free time now! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "The Olympiad was initially supposed to take place in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia, along with the Chess World Cup 2019, but was later moved to Moscow and scheduled for August 2020" <<<=== This makes it sound like the Olympiad was originally scheduled to happen in 2019 at the same time as the World Cup.
• I don't think you need to label Laurent Freyd as an International Arbiter for the same reason you wouldn't label players like David Howell as GMs
• in the Chess Olympiads ===>>> at the Chess Olympiad
• I'm not sure the use of parentheses in the third paragraph is correct or if you even need the parentheses.
• Relatedly, I would recommend instead of "30th Chess Olympiad in 1992", just "1992" linked to 30th Chess Olympiad or "Manila in 1992" and Manila or 1992 linked to 30th Chess Olympiad. This is mainly because I don't think the number of the Olympiad means anything to anyone.

Background

• What FIDE is an abbreviation of is the "International Chess Federation" even if the letters don't match.
• "The president of the Russian Chess Federation, Andrey Filatov, explained that the decision was driven by two factors: firstly, there would be technical problems because of the enlarged number of participants due to the inaugural Chess Olympiad for People with Disabilities; and secondly, there had been growing demands to the Russian Chess Federation from amateur chess players following the 2018 FIFA World Cup, who would like to see the event with their own eyes." <<<=== This isn't written in an encyclopedic manner, but more importantly, it's also too closely paraphrased from the source.
• "Khanty-Mansiysk was to host the Chess Olympiad for People with Disabilities" <<<=== "was to host" isn't the best tense
• "in teams representing blind, deaf and physically disabled players" <<<=== I don't think this explanation of what "Olympiad for People with Disabilities" means is necessary.
• "as well as the opening ceremony of the Chess Olympiad" <<<=== I find it hard to believe this is true.
• "It was the first time that the Chess Olympiad was hosted in India." <<<=== I don't think this is the right tense.

Preparations

• top 28 boards in the Open section and the top board <<<=== number is missing
• Relatedly, specify "the boards for the top 28 teams in the standings"
• "with other games played in Hall 2" ===>>> "while the rest of the boards were played in Hall 2"
• "the morning of 27 July" ===>>> "the morning of 27 July, the day before the event"
• calling the pricing "premium" is too much WP:PUFFERY
• "an official of the Tamil Nadu State Chess Association said that, despite the premium pricing, all tickets had been sold out" <<<=== This is too closely paraphrased.
• "To prevent cheating using chess engines, all electronic devices (including mobile phones) had to be deposited at a counter outside the halls" <<< === The parentheses aren't necessary. Something like "mobile phones and any other electronic devices" would be better. The last part of the sentence is also too closely paraphrased.

Opening ceremony

• A flag parade was held with one player from each team. <<<=== I don't think it was any specific number of players.

Format

• "increment of 30 seconds per move was applied" <<<=== rephrase to indicate from the first move.
• Specify the board colours alternate.
• drawing a round was worth 1 match point <<<=== "one match point"
• "The event took pace" <<<=== typo

Will continue later this week. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Open

• It featured five out of the top ten players from the FIDE rating list published in July 2022. <<<=== Suggest rephrasing to: "five of the top ten didn't play" because the current wording makes it sound like the top players are not expected to play, whereas I think it was unusual this this many top players skipped.
• Relatedly, group the top ten players who played, instead of dividing it between the beginning and end of the paragraph.
• As you start the paragraph talking about the top ten, it makes it sound like all players mentioned are top ten, but Anand, Radjabov, and Le Quang Liem were not
• average rating of 2771, higher than any other team <<<=== clarify "much higher"
• Maybe clarify that Norway's high average rating was largely due to Magnus. That could probably be cited.
• open event, with a total of 19 match points <<<=== comma is not necessary
• The paragraph should be framed from a perspective of how Uzbekistan won, not just how the other teams lost. (For example, Nodirbek also had a great performance above expectation, like Gukesh.)

Women's

• It featured three of the ten top players ===>>> It featured only three of the ten top players
• the other six players of the top ten <<<=== Seven, you are missing Lei Tingjie.
• Hou Yifan probably wouldn't have played anyway, as she has been largely inactive. I wouldn't imply she didn't play just because China didn't send a team.
• current Women's World Champion ===>>> reigning Women's World Champion
• Ukraine, with former Women's World Champion Anna Ushenina, <<<=== I don't think this is an adequate summary of the Ukraine team
• I think "tie-break" is correct, not "tie-breaker"
• Like the open section, it should be framed more from a perspective of how Ukraine won, not just how the other teams lost.
• Oliwia Kiołbasa had the highest individual score <<<=== best performance, not highest score. Pia Cramling had the exact same score.

Will come back later. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: Thanks for the additional comments. I've improved the article accordingly.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Continuing...

Gaprindashvili Trophy

• "both results tables" ===>>> "the standings" ("results table" I don't think is an expression)

FIDE Congress

• silly point, but what is a FIDE Congress?
• 31 July 2022 to 9 August <<<=== you don't need "2022", also it's weird to only include it in one of four dates in this sentence
• "other notable decisions made at the Congress are presented in turn" <<<=== I don't think this is encyclopedic phrasing.
• I would suggest putting the "Other decisions" in a paragraph rather than a list.
• "after it had been previously received as the only valid bid" ===>>> They were the only valid bid
• in the bidding procedure that ended on 31 May 2022 ===>>> submitted by the 31 May 2022 deadline
• The FIDE General Assembly noted the results of re-electing Zurab Azmaiparashvili as president of the European Chess Union and electing of Tshepiso Lopang as president of the African Chess Confederation <<<=== If these things didn't happen at the Congress, what is the reason for mentioning them?
• whereas the ASEAN Chess Confederation <<<=== "whereas" is not correct. The second part of the sentence isn't the opposite of the first.

Year of the Woman in Chess

• On the first day of the Olympiad, the Queen's and Social Pavilion was opened by FIDE President Dvorkovich and Managing Director Dana Reizniece-Ozola with the goal of spreading the message of unity in diversity. <<<=== This is too close paraphrasing, but I think it's also unnecessary to begin with.

Marketing

• "current Grandmasters" <<<=== "current" is not necessary, and "grandmasters" should be lowercase when plural in this manner
• " All games from 707 boards" ===>>> "Games from all 707 boards"

Broadcasting

• Okay.

Controversies

• Doping restrictions <<<=== suggest re-organizing this section. I don't think the points are clear. It seems like the main points are (i) there was drug testing, and separate from that, (ii) Russia shouldn't have been allowed to host the event to begin with. The section seems to switch back-and-forth between those points in a confusing way. I suggest starting the paragraph with those two points, and then explaining them in the sentences that follow. It also should be mentioned that the event was moved out of Russia anyway.
• at the same host ===>>> with the same host
• clarify that China did not participate because of travel restrictions related to the pandemic.
• The Russian invasion section should start with the effect on the Olympiad, and then explain the specifics. (which is a similar issue to the doping restrictions section)
• "playing for them at the Olympiad." ===>>> "and played for them at the Olympiad."
• "used the flag used by the Taliban militant group" ===>>> "used the flag of the Taliban militant group" (to avoid multiple "used"s)
• The Pakistan citations need to be in numerical order.
• have refused to recognise the chess federation ===>>> had refused to recognise the federation

Previous comments

• These two points weren't addressed: "The paragraph should be framed from a perspective of how Uzbekistan won, not just how the other teams lost." and "Like the open section, it should be framed more from a perspective of how Ukraine won, not just how the other teams lost." The progression of the each winning team through the tournaments are still missing.

Other comments

• I see some access dates missing. Not 100% sure, but I think those are required.

I'll look at it again after these points are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kiril Simeonovski, how are you doing with these? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777 and Gog the Mild: I've made changes in the article according to the suggestions. Regarding the FIDE Congress, there's a definition in the FIDE Handbook, which could fit well in a note, but it's written in a specialist language.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If you feel it appropriate to add it, then by all means rewrite, or paraphrase, the terminology into something comprehensible to a lay reader. This is one of the things which Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added that note.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Sportsfan77777, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

• §Background: "The city of Khanty-Mansiysk (Russia) officially bid for the event, although the national federations of Argentina and Slovakia had previously also expressed interest." Needs rephrasing:
  • "officially" looks redundant since an unofficial bid is presumably not a bid at all.
  • "although" is appropriate if it follows a complete list of bids, in which case the point of the sentence would be that Khanty-Mansiysk was the only bid.
  • in light of subsequent changes (first to Moscow, then to India), perhaps we can call Khanty-Mansiysk's bid the only original bid, this prepares the reader for the following complications.

  Thus, something like: "The city of Khanty-Mansiysk (Russia) submitted the only original bid for the event, although the national federations of Argentina and Slovakia had previously also expressed interest."

More later... ---- Mirokado (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC), updated -- Mirokado (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Thanks for your comment. I've rephrased that sentence in the text.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• §Venue and transport: I think we need to explain why Hall 1 had 28 boards from the Open section and only one from the Womens' section. Was it pre-tournament player rankings, for example?
• §Competition format and calendar: "There was one rest day at the tournament, on 4 August, ...": "at the tournament" is redundant, and "at" does not seem quite correct usage. I think "There was one rest day on 4 August, ..." would be better.
• §Open event: Final standings table: Why is the dSB entry missing for India-2?
• §Promotional activities: "A private school in Perambur erected a 6,400-square-foot (590 m2) giant chessboard, opened by P. K. Sekar Babu, Tamil Nadu's minister of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, on which students played the pieces and 14-foot (4.3 m) statues of the Thambi mascot." This sentence is too complicated - the students did not play the statues! It needs to be rephrased, probably split.

Both the sections have their own main article which gives details of the games themselves and a few interesting positions. Was there no play sufficiently significant to be mentioned in this overview article. It's OK if there wasn't, of course. ---- Mirokado (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Thanks for the additional comments. My responses in corresponding order are in turn:

• I wasn't able to find out any details about why only the top board of the Women's section was played in Hall 1 alongside the first 28 boards in the Open section, but I don't think it has anything to do with the pre-tournament average ratings of participating teams.
• Accepted and changed.
• The Sonneborn-Berger score excluding worst result (dSB) is a tie-breaking criterion used to rank teams with equal match points. As India-2 was the only team with 18 match points, the value of the dSB is redundant. There's a note in the article's source code which explains this, but it's possible to make the emboldened dSB in the table's first row link to Sonneborn–Berger score. What do you think?
• Accepted and changed (split).

There were some interesting games played in both sections that proved decisive for the final standings, but given that there was no knock-out phase and all rounds count equally, it'd give undue weight if some moments are singled out. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Kiril: an excellent split for the chessboard sentence. If there is no reliable source, or no commentary from a reliable source, we cannot explain the board dispositions, but this part should be updated if anyone does find a suitable source.

• §Open event: Final standings table: The comment in the source is really clear and will prevent any unwanted "helpful" edit. Particularly since we already have "Notes" for this table, I think we should add a brief note for this, with for example a dagger symbol in the greyed-out field. This will make the table self-explanatory and conform to MOS which says that no information should be conveyed solely by a change of colour. A link to the dSB article could appear in that note, since the existing link is rather far away in this article. The current dotted-line abbr explanations in the table headings are fine, I would leave those as they are for consistent presentation.

I have probably one or two further comments which will need a separate post. ---- Mirokado (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• §Participating teams: table: from the point of view of accessibility and general clarity, I think that using only a typographic distinction (italics, bold, strikethrough) to indicate various aspects of participation should be improved. I for example did not notice those differences while looking through the table, only when checking the notes and going back. Italics-etc would be very cryptic to anyone using a screen reader, whereas additional notes symbols would provide a conventional clue that there is a notes section after the table. It would be fine to retain the existing indication as well.
• §Year of the Woman in Chess: five of the winners do not have articles yet. I am wondering whether we can give a bit more information about each than just their name, for example nationality, job title or whatever. A callout to a note for each of those entries would be one way to do this without making them longer than the others.

Probably no more comments from me. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Thanks for the new suggestions. I’ve added notes to the participating teams and the dSB criterion. As for the winners of the Year of the Women in Chess awards, adding their nationality in parentheses was the first thing that came to my mind because there were also continental winnners from other countries in the same categories. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Kiril. All the above now fixed, and of course I noticed a couple other issues while checking!

• §Year of the Woman in Chess:
  • "The list of overall winners across award categories include:" The verb should be singular ("includes") because the subject is "The list". However, when I see "something includes..." I think of the list as incomplete. In this case it would be better to say: "The overall winners across award categories were:" or similar
  • "The awards were handed by Alwahshi Abdullah Salem": Better usage would be "handed out" (informal) or "presented" (better for an encyclopedia), but the FIDE reference says "The awards have been provided by Dr Alwahshi Abdullah Salem", which I understand to mean "provided to FIDE or the organisers for the event". The photographs in the ref seem to show each award being presented by a different person. I think it would be better to go with "provided".

-- Mirokado (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Kiril for making these corrections.

Support. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.