Jump to content

Talk:Nemo Zhou/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 14:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article and was like "wasn't this about start-class a week ago?" Then I saw the GAN. Really good to see the overhaul on something that's getting 1,000 views per day. Before I properly analyse the rest, can a section be added on playing style? Possible questions it might answer include: is she a d4 player, known for a positional style, better at short time controls, did she play King's Indian Attack as an intermediate player etc.? And while I'm here, can you swap mention of WGM and FM in the lead, as WGM is higher? — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up so quickly! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WGM and FM titles swapped. I had thought for sure WGM was higher, but I got confused after I saw the rating requirement was the same and I couldn't find the norm requirements for FM. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, to follow up on this, is WGM only a higher title because it requires norms and FM does not? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChessGames only has 58 of her games in the database. That collection shows a good preference for e4 to d4 (22 to 3), but there's not much preference beyond that with such a small sample size. Her chess.com player profile describes her playing style a little bit, but I think it's short on specifics. I could put one of their samples as a notable game. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
58 is not enough for meaningful stats, I would guess. Might be worth asking at WT:CHESS if anyone has any relevant sources (Canadian chess magazines or access to ChessBase or similar) because I think playing style is an important part of the topic. An example game from the chess.com profile would go some way towards this though. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote up a section based mainly on an interview with the St. Louis Chess Club that I just found. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good. Maybe still a weaker link but good enough for GA, I think. Full review below: — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • I think the structure needs a bit of reworking. My suggestion would be to rename "Chess career" to "Competitive chess career" (since the streaming is also chess and also a career), separate "Playing style" as a (level 2) section, rename "Personal life" to "Other activities", move the only non-chess content (from "Besides chess" to the end of that paragraph) to "Early life and background" and move the akaNemsko paragraph of explanation to the bottom of "Streaming career". The idea is to group the content like hobbies which are not quite together (e.g. pole vaulting at the top, basketball at the bottom); to limit the scope of "Chess career" because that describes almost all of the article text; and to avoid content in a "Personal life" section which is still about high-level chess. Feel free to counter-propose or ask me to expand if this suggestion is confusing.
    • I think that's a good idea to group the hobbies at the bottom. Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like the akaNemsko sentence fits better with the Nemo sentences than the streamer section, and I wouldn't put the fact that her nickname is Nemo in the streaming career section since that's more general. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I switched the "Team competitions" and "Playing style" sections to Level 2, as I normally do. I was thinking it would be better to group those with her chess career to make it clear they weren't related to her streaming career, but I think you're right that it's better not to put everything in the chess career section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used "Personal life" as a header because that is a standard section header in biographies, not just chess players or athletes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure it's necessary to rename chess career to competitive chess career because I think that's understood. As an a potentially clearer counterexample, there are lots of players who become coaches after their playing career is over (e.g. Susan Polgar). I'm not sure I would rename the "chess career" section in those types of cases just to distinguish it from a "coaching career" section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, most of these aren't dealbreakers but I'm not happy with the university competition and ChessBase contributions being under "Personal life" because the first is competitive chess activity and the second a professional activity that's part of her chess career (the DVDs particularly are just how most titled players make money, along with coaching). And consider moving "Personal life" to the bottom section so we don't go from chess to not chess and then back to chess again. — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has been ranked as high as No. 100" sounds either informal or POV – maybe "a top position of No. 100" (which still avoids repetition of "peak").
  • I think a #10 peak on Top 100 Girls in September 2016 (per [1]) is worth mentioning (specifying that "girls" is U21).
  • "The highest-rated opponents she has defeated include Toms Kantāns" – That's just one opponent. Looking through the FIDE records I think we can be confident that this is the highest-rated opponent, singular, and it's worth repeating that in the body too.
  • "who she has long considered to be her biggest role model among other chess players" – Simpler and better as "who she long considered to be her biggest role model". ("Biggest among others" is a bit contradictory; past tense because her view could have changed on this.)
  • "Zhou earned her first FIDE rating..." – Mention her age at this point for ease of reference. I take it that would be 11 (post-birthday) as the rating would be published at the end of the month.
  • "second tiebreak criteria" – "criterion" is the singular (wiktionary link or rephrase e.g. "second of the tiebreak criteria" if you think readers won't understand).
  • "Canadian women's national championship" – Why lowercase?
  • Somewhere before "other Chess.com streamers", introduce that Zhou is formally partnered with Chess.com.
  • "for leading non-chess streamers" – "Leading" seems a bit POV, would just drop that word.
    • This is needed to clarify it's not just random streamers. I added a source that states "Chess.com is kicking off the summer with the inaugural 2020 Chess.com PogChamps, featuring top Twitch streamers". I don't think "leading" is particularly POV as it is not very specific with regards to how well-followed they are. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chess.com is running the event so this source is an advert and not good for determining the significance of the streamers. "Leading" is indeed not very specific and that's what makes this a POV claim—you've said it in Wikipedia's words but it doesn't refer to a demonstrable, clear fact and just asserts importance. In what sense isn't it random streamers? In that it's a private invitational? Maybe that's the concrete fact behind this. — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zhou has had quick success as a streamer" – I would just drop this comment. Let the facts tell the reader whether to be impressed or not. But Social Blade does not strike me as reliable, either before or after trying to look for precedent of whether/how it's used on Wikipedia. I would just cite her Twitch profile directly, and mention only the current figure in the infobox and in the prose. Or the CBC's "nearly 75,000 followers on Twitch" or Toronto Star's "more than 70,000 followers" as of October 2020.
    • The sources make it clear that this is a lot of followers and in a short amount of time (e.g. "Zhou only joined Twitch last June, but has amassed 124,000 followers." from the new Ottawa Citizen source). It's needed because someone unfamiliar with Twitch will not know if this is a lot. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can change it if you like (as it does not matter, given they both display the current totals), but I do think Social Blade is reliable for this purpose and that it makes more sense to cite a page that shows statistics over the primary source. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah I would like to be changed. YouTube actually claimed that Social Blade is inaccurate about them; whether YouTube are to be trusted here is dubious but it casts enough doubt. I'm still not happy with "quick success" either, because someone's threshold for successful could be a higher number of followers, or based on concrete income rather than follower, or average viewer count; and because bot accounts following (either more or less than the average streamer) or other demographic factors mean that "number of followers" is hardly an objective measure of popularity. At most, you could quote from a source and attribute that quote in prose, but I'm not happy with "quick success" in Wikipedia's voice. — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, removed. (I'm not sure I believe that, though. It's from four years ago.). The channels are already in the infobox, so they don't need to be linked separately. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless of her followers count, she was also able to become the first streamer to sign with an eSports organization, despite only having been streaming for about two months. I don't think that's POV that that should count as a success. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, let's put it this way: there's a large number of people in the chess community who view streaming as a waste of time, or at least not an activity preferable to competitive chess, don't think that a six-digit "follower" count or (in day-to-day practice) four-digit view count is anything impressive and would not view Zhou favorably for streaming half-chess half-League of Legends. Now I don't agree with these people in the slightest, but the point of POV is that unless they are factually wrong or holding a fringe viewpoint in some way, the article shouldn't be written in a way that antagonises that viewpoint. So we can point to what we might view as evidence that Zhou is accomplished. But when you say "someone unfamiliar with Twitch will not know if this is a lot", this gets the framing wrong: some may view streaming as a medium not to show success, or think that putting out entertainment content would only be successful if viewership was at the level of broadcast television, or only think it's success if it has a measurable impact (e.g. if viewers' chess abilities improve) or just say "no, I'm not impressed by 100,000 in a year when I compare it to these streamers" etc. The fact is that the number is 100,000 but "success" presupposes many layers of additional POV on top of the actual base facts. And as for the eSports signing, one can say very similar things. All of the opinions I've given are, of course, things we shouldn't mention in Wikipedia's voice. So is "quick success" and "this success was part of..." — Bilorv (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Realised I left this mid-sentence, forgot to change it after a bit more thought. Sentence should end "... profile games, but not doing this wouldn't be a big deal." — Bilorv (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the limited use of WP:SELFPUB primary sources for uncontroversial information, the infobox image license, that the article is broad and that refs not mentioned above are fine (particularly as a lot of them are just verifying data about results and ratings). Reads nicely! — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, Bilorv! I replied to everything above. I think I agreed with the majority of the comments. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing back on a couple but the rest are looking good (will check in more detail when I can). — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to everything above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think the article now meets the criteria so it's a pass for GA from me. Thanks for your hard work! — Bilorv (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nemo_Zhou/GA1&oldid=1239132344"