# Talk:Anna Rudolf

How did she became IM when her peak rating was < 2400 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.176.217 (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Only 2200 needed for WIM, and <2400 is usual, but not an absolute requirement, for IM (see FIDE titles#International Master (IM)). Klbrain (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
(comment 1/2) what is the relevance of WIM here? Thewriter006 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
German Wikipedia answers the question in the following way (my translation): "Her highest published ELO rating is at 2393 in July 2010, but she reached the minimum ELO of 2400 required for the IM title in the second round of the IV Open Internacional Hotel Avenida de Canarias 2010 tournament.". A source is also provided specifically for that statement, but I didn't take the time to check it out: http://ratings.fide.com/individual_calculations.phtml?idnumber=722855&rating_period=2010-09-01&t=0 JB. --92.193.162.182 (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
(comment 2/2) ah so IM and possibly other titles, refers to live ratings rather than FIDE's monthly published ratings? Thewriter006 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

this is her right? https://www.chess.com/member/anna_chess
Thewriter006 (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It is, Thewriter006, but we tend to keep external links to a minimum. Perhaps better would be this profile written by chess.com staff, which could potentially be used to source or add article content. A good article to look to is Qiyu Zhou, which was recently improved to Good Article status. — Bilorv (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anna Rudolf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Picking up this one. Review follows in due course. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Great images. All appropriately licensed.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Article looks fine to me. I would have merged the two infoboxes, but no issues. Suggest submitting the article to DYK.

ok and then? Thewriter006 (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

She squandered an opportunity...    This is a loaded way to introduce the false cheating accusation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.34.35 (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)