Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George H. D. Gossip


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 14 January 2009.

George H. D. Gossip

 * Nominator(s): Krakatoa (talk)

The article has successfully passed A-Class and GA review. The GA reviewer, Crystal whacker, wrote, "I would support this article at Featured nominations if it came that way." Commenter Caissanist wrote, "This article is a model for how biographies of chess players should be written in Wikipedia, if not for all biographies." Krakatoa (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm stopping by here to stand by that comment. Support. Crystal whacker (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Gossip Chess-Player's Manual (2).jpg - Could you please include the complete publication information for this book? Note that WP:IUP states "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information) and not just title and author."
 * File:Gossip's Vest-Pocket Chess Manual 2.jpg - Could you please include the complete publication information for this book? Awadewit (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE for both. Krakatoa (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (These are awesome pictures, by the way - I love book covers like that!) All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.chessgames.com/index.html
 * ChessGames.com is the leading site on the Internet for chess games. It is cited in practically every chess article. The reliability of this site was raised and established in the FA review of First-move advantage in chess. Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To concur, here is a link to the mentioned FA review. Here are a few of the reasons stated then:
 * This website is used in about all chess-related articles managed by the WP:WikiProject Chess, as this is the only one that is notable, reliable and "linkable".
 * It is used extensively in the articles Chess, The Turk and First-move advantage in chess, that are all featured articles.
 * An interview (in page 2) of the site manager by the online magazine "Chess Today". The interviewer introduces the site as "one of the most impressive and unusual chess web projects around".
 * A rating of various chess websites. Note that www.chessgames.com is one of the very few to get a "A" rating.
 * SyG (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Use by other FAs doesn't make it necessarily reliable. I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider ChessGames.com a reliable source, apart from comments on games made by users. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that links to games from ChessGames.com are a good idea (the reader can replay the game easily), but it is always better to add a citation of the same game from a printed source. Because the games on ChessGames.com are added by anonymous users of the site - it works on a similar principle like Wikipedia.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a051107.htm
 * The article cited is an article about Ellen Gilbert, written by Neil Brennen. This article won an Honorable Mention in the category "Best Historical Article" from the Chess Journalists of America in 2006 - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2006.htm
 * Its author, Neil Brennen, is a chess historian. Here is a biographical note about him from 2003:
 * "Neil Brennen is Historian for the Pennsylvania State Chess Federation, and is editor of the PSCF's award winning magazine The Pennswoodpusher. He is a columnist for Correspondence Chess News. Aside from CCN, his articles on chess history have been published at The Chess Cafe, and in Quarterly for Chess History, California Chess Journal, Illinois Chess Bulletin, and other publications. Neil's first book, a biography of American master Sydney T. Sharp (1885-1953), will be published later this year by Moravian Chess. – http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030507.htm"
 * In 2004, Brennen won the award for "Best Historical Article" from the Chess Journalists of America - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2004.htm In 2005, he won an Honorable Mention in the same category - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2005.htm In 2006, he won the award for "Best Web-Based Review" and the aforementioned Honorable Mention for the Ellen Gilbert article - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2006.htm In 2007, he again won an Honorable Mention in the category "Best Historical Article" - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2007.htm Krakatoa (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the article is acceptable as a source here - not because of the site, but because of the author and the award.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * http://web.archive.org/web/20071013075435/http://excaliburelectronics.com/history0499.html
 * Excalibur Electronics runs the U.S. World Chess Hall of Fame, which is also sponsored by the United States Chess Federation (USCF) and its members. See US Chess Hall of Fame News and World Chess Hall of Fame and Sidney Samole Chess Museum. The article from that site that I cite (http://web.archive.org/web/20071013075435/http://excaliburelectronics.com/history0499.html) is one of a series of historical articles commissioned by the U.S. Chess Trust, a non-profit charitable organization affiliated with the USCF - see About the U.S. Chess Trust; the identical articles are published in print form as "The Hall-of-Fame History of U.S. Chess, Part I", which I also cite. Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In case my previous comment did not make it clear, the cited article is a verbatim reproduction of the chapter "Chess in the Old West" on pages 50-52 of this book: McCrary, Robert John, The Hall-of-Fame History of U.S. Chess, Number 1, U.S. Chess Trust. Given that the article cites the book as a reference, no one contends that the book is not a reliable source, and the website cited in the article simply reproduces a chapter from the book verbatim, it should be just as reliable a source as the book it reproduces. The book is referred to here: "In addition, these donors, upon request, will receive a numbered copy of the limited edition Hall-of-Fame History of U.S. Chess, the most unique history of American chess ever written!" Since only 250 copies of the book were produced (mine is number 158), the website is a far more accessible way for readers to view the material. Krakatoa (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is solved. It is possible to cite a book from a reliable web site.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.chesshistory.com/
 * This site is run by Edward Winter (chess historian), probably the most respected chess historian in the world, who has published Chess Notes for many years. The back cover of his book A Chess Omnibus quotes Yasser Seirawan and Jan Timman, two of the world's strongest grandmasters, as well as CHESS magazine, regarding Winter's stature as a chess historian. Seirawan: "Edward Winter is the chess world's foremost authority on its rich history. ..." Timman: "Writers on chess history and the games of yesteryear are not normally pathfinders or perfectionists, but Edward Winter is an exception, taking great pains not only to tackle difficult research tasks but also to present the facts precisely. ..." Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CHESS magazine wrote of Winter (from the back cover of A Chess Omnibus), "Over the years he has not only amassed a vast amount of knowledge on chess lore - much of which had been lost or forgotten in the passage of time - but he has shown great skill in evaluating, correcting, utilizing and publishing this information. A perfectionist through and through, his energy and enthusiasm are fuelled by a commitment to presenting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." That would seem to be the epitome of a "reliable source". Krakatoa (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Winter has also written six books on chess history. Four of them are largely collections of his Chess Note columns; one is a collection of material on José Raúl Capablanca, the world chess champion from 1921-27; and the last is World Chess Champions. Winter has also written over 20 50 articles for ChessBase, which you have accepted as a reliable source: http://www.chessbase.com/columns/winter01.asp (note "Next Page" key at bottom, and use repeatedly). Krakatoa (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider Winter to be a reliable source. One thing though (and this is my opinion and I don't know if it matters) is that Winter seems to like to criticize other writers for minor errors. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone would argue with the proposition that Winter sets high standards, both for himself and others. That is completely consistent with being a reliable source, of course. Incidentally, in December 2008, in Chess Note No. 5919, he specifically praised the article now under review:"5919. Wikipedia It is impossible not to have misgivings, both general and particular, about Wikipedia, but we have recently noticed a great improvement in some of the chess articles in the site’s English-language version. There is, for instance, excellent treatment of G.H.D. Gossip, and it is also good to see a fine article on Hugh Myers."
 * Krakatoa (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, a non-anonymous blog/private website of a noted expert in the field can be cited if no better (printed) sources are available.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.

Comments Support: My numerous concerns, itemised below, have been resolved, and I am satisfied with the responses to other reviewers. This is now a quality article, well worthy of promotion to FA. The featured games are terrific, though I doubt I will have the chance to exploit these strategies in real play. Well done, Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The unexplained title "Master" in the infobox looks odd. Where did the title come from, who awarded it, was it an official chess ranking of his day? The infobox needs to be more forthcoming, especially as not all readers will be chess-wise.
 * "Master" at that time was a loosely used term. (Today, organizations like FIDE and the United States Chess Federation award titles like FIDE Master and National Master.) As stated in the "Chess career" section, Gossip played in the "Master sections" of a number of tournaments. He thus must have been considered a "master". Chess tournaments at that time (and often today) often had multiple tournaments of different strength levels played at the same time and place. (For example, London 1883, referred to in the "Chess career" section, had the major tournament in which the "masters" played, and the minor tournament in which lesser lights (including Gossip at that time) played. I have added a parenthetical "(unofficial)" after "Master" to make clear that no body formally awarded him that title. Krakatoa (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Call me nuts, but I have removed the mention from the Infobox. I find it too unofficial to be of any value. SyG (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the "Non-chess career" section has too many details, some barely relevant. The organisation of the section into eight short paragraphs creates a choppy feel which disturbs the narrative pace. I believe the paragraph could be considerably condensed by removing marginal matters, e.g his wife being a year older, the places of each of his children's birth, his children's marriages, etc. I would also expect to see his last years and death at the end rather than the beginning of the article, in a section which discusses his posthumous reputation and legacy (broadly in the manner of the last pararaphs of the present Manner and Reputation section).
 * I have shortened the section as you suggested, removing the bit about his wife being a year older and the children's birthplaces. I retained mention of the children's marriages in Australia, because those facts support the sentence about his wife and children apparently staying in Australia while he moved to the U.S. I did shorten the mentions of the children's marriages, omitting their spouses' names. As for why the information about his last years and death being in the "Non-chess career" rather than elsewhere, they are here because, as far as we know, he played no chess in his last years. All the other sections pertain to chess, so this information would be out of place in them. Krakatoa (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I have regrouped paragraphs, now down to 5. Although I do not know what to do with the last one, two lines about his grandson. It cannot really go in the other paragraphs as it has nothing to do with Gossip's life, but it would be a shame to remove it as it may be of interest for some readers. SyG (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edits look fine to me. I have tried an alternative approach, putting all the information about his family's further life in Australia (wife's death, kids' marriages, WWI flying ace grandson) in one paragraph. I deleted the sentence about the grandson's 1922 death and burial in Istanbul - adds a little color, but I'm not sure how many readers would be interested in that. Krakatoa (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mrs Gilbert famously announced..." Why was this announcement "famous"? – victory in a minor correspondence tournament.
 * Chess historian Neil Brennen wrote in http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a051107.htm:
 * "The results of the games, as well as the announced mates, caused a sensation in the chess world. Her townsman and friend John Belden declared the games against Gossip 'stamp Mrs. Gilbert with the impress of genius.' Steinitz annotated two of Mrs. Gilbert's games for The Field; poetry, good and bad, was written to the new 'Queen of Chess', and at least one chess problem composed in her honor."
 * These were probably the longest announced mates in history. Announced mates in three or five are normal. For examples, see http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Achesshistory.com%2Fwinter&q=Announced+mate&btnG=Chess+Notes+search One does not normally, even in postal chess, calculate 35 moves deep; given how many moves are possible on each turn, it is impossible. See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4904 regarding unusual examples of over-the-board calculation (as much as 15 moves deep). The fact that Mrs. Gilbert was a woman no doubt added to the "famousness" of the achievement. It was extremely unusual for women to play chess with men in the 19th century, and doing so extraordinarily well was even more unusual. (See the discussion in http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a051107.htm ) Mrs. Gilbert's feat was sufficiently remarkable that World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz commented on it, verifying the accuracy of her analyses. Irving Chernev, Wonders and Curiosities of Chess, Dover, 1974, p. 132. Krakatoa (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to say "famously" in the source, so I don't think it should in the article. It does say "sensation" in the source, so you could alter "famously" to "sensationally". This is my only outstanding point; otherwise I am ready to support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to the quotation "caused a sensation in the chess world" - as in the cited Brennen article. Krakatoa (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Gossip was unable to repeat this comparative success...". Hmmm, tied 17th out of 20 a success? I think it might be fairer to say "even this modest level of success"
 * I have revised it as you suggested. Krakatoa (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The single sentence paragraph towards the end of the Chess career section should be merged into the final paragraph, which needs a bit of rephrasing to avoid repetition of "in the world bt Chessmetrics"
 * I merged the single-sentence paragraph into the paragraph about Gossip's last tournaments. I edited the last paragraph to avoid the repetitious "number x in the world according to Chessmetrics". Krakatoa (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The games themselves were most interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I put in a request to User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix the faulty endashes in the page ranges on citations. I noticed a good deal of WP:OVERLINKing; words and countries commonly known to English speakers need not be linked. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hint. It seems this has now been cared for my Dabomb87. SyG (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Here are some initial thoughts. I'll give it a closer read in the future, as I too am interested in this one.
 * Do all of the world's best players of Gossip's time need to be listed in the lead? I would expect a handful of examples to illustrate, not eleven.
 * I have shorten to 3 of them. SyG (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the lead further to just "playing against most of the world's leading players", not listing any here. Krakatoa (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To expand on Sandy's point, journalist and translator don't need to be linked. Those are in the lead.
 * I have dewikified them. SyG (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * More examples from Non-chess life: newpapers, magazines, continents and a bunch of others.
 * They've been dewikified. Krakatoa (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Place The Times in italics, since it's a printed publication.
 * Done. SyG (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Chess career: "finished 5th–6th out of 7 players." As someone without much knowledge of chess, this confused me somewhat. Does "5th–6th" mean that he finished in a tie with another player? If this is official chess terminology, don't worry about it.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Standard chess terminology, used in e.g. the books of Alexander Alekhine's and Jose Capablanca's best games (full biblio details are in these articles). Similiarly e.g. "3rd-6th" would indicate a 4-way tie. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As this is the first time a tie is encountered in the article, I have clarified it. SyG (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm back (finally) to offer more comments.
 * Chess career: Chop the second of two World Chess Championship links in the section.
 * Done. Krakatoa (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "finishing in a tie for third-fifth of seven players." Should an en dash be used here?
 * I've now used an en dash here, and in all similar situations in the "Chess career" section. In addition, I have now changed the text to consistently use numbers throughout (for example, "3rd–5th of 7 players") in order to comply with WP:MOSNUM, rather than mixing numbers and words (e.g. "third–fifth of seven players" and "17th–18th of 20 players"), as had previously been the case. Krakatoa (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Chess books and articles: Watch for POV here; a couple of problems spots are "the critics who had savaged his earlier treatice" and "Unfortunately".
 * I've changed the "Unfortunately, Gossip 'was the victim of an act of gross privacy' ..." bit to "Unfortunately for Gossip, he 'was the victim of an act of gross privacy' ..." As for the "critics who had savaged his earlier treatise", it is not POV, but a fair summary of the cited source (Diggle in the British Chess Magazine). Diggle wrote regarding the reviews of the earlier treatise, "The book was greeted by a roar of condemnation", referred to "its ferocious mangling by the reviewers", and also characterized the reviews as "contemptuous" and "venomous". Diggle, p. 1. Unless I'm to repeat all that, "savaged" seems an appropriate summary. Krakatoa (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "An anonymous reviewer in the New York Times...". Capitalize "the", and put in in the italicized link. Do the same in Manner and reputation. Back in the books section, there's another World Championship link nearby.
 * I've changed all instances of "the New York Times" and "New York Times" to "The New York Times". I also deleted the redundant link. Krakatoa (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notable games: Can the inline links be turned into regular references? Also, watch the order of the references in this section. Usually, references are given in numerical order.
 * Done - I turned the inline links into regular references, and put the references in numerical order. Krakatoa (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference 71 (New York Times book review) doesn't have a page number, but it may not need one. The paper's archives make freely accessible everything published before 1923; a link to the review would be a nice touch.
 * The link I had before went to the abstract of the review; I have substituted a link that goes directly to the review. It just displays on my computer as one big document, with no page numbers. Krakatoa (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall, it was an interesting read and I enjoyed it.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now addressed all your points as best I can. See what you think. Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The only word the tool identifies as needing disambiguation is the place name Hatfield. I have now disambiguated that. Krakatoa (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Shouldn't this article be moved to George H. D. Gossip? I vaguely recall the MoS mentioning something about a space between initials. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response I searched for "initials" in WP:MOS, but found nothing relevant. My understanding has been that in British English, the space is invariably used (the British writers A. A. Milne and G. H. Diggle, for example), but that in American English the space was commonly not used. For example, the name of the late American actor E.G. Marshall is often seen with no space between the initials. But Wikipedia's practice, whether written or not, seems to be to use the space, even for Americans: E. G. Marshall, E. B. White. L.L.Bean has no spaces at all, but that refers to the name of a company that uses no spaces, not the person for whom it was named. I looked in the Modern Language Association's MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, Sixth Edition, p. 262, expecting it to support the "no space" practice. Alas, it does not: it says that for the initials used for personal names "a period and a space ordinarily follow each initial" (citing J. R. R. Tolkien as the example). So I'm reluctantly going to move the article to George H. D. Gossip. Krakatoa (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I have accordingly tried to move the present page to Featured article candidates/George H. D. Gossip, but without success. Could someone please help with that? Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I have to warn I was somehow involved in the article, as I performed first a B-class review and then an A-class review on the article. That being said, I think the article upholds the FA-criteria, with solid sources, appropriate length and structure, and good style (for what is possible with this type of article). I also think the significant concerns of other editors above have been cared for. SyG (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments - I was also involved in the A-class review, and a couple of what I think are minor blemishes have crept in since:
 * Done In "Chess career", the phrase "X of Y possible points" is repeated a lot. After the first instance (4th para, "Gossip finished 3rd with 6½ of 9 possible points"), I'd abbreviate it to "X out of Y". --Philcha (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Krakatoa (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done
 * I think "Diggle writes that Gossip's drawn match with Pollock vindicates the observation of the 1889 BCM commentator that Gossip was more at home in a match than a tournament" could be slimmed a bit. How about e.g. "In Diggle's opinion, Gossip's drawn match with Pollock vindicates the BCM's observation in 1889 that Gossip was more at home in a match than a tournament"? --Philcha (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I shortened it to "In Diggle's opinion, Gossip's drawn match with Pollock vindicates the BCM's 1889 observation that Gossip would be more at home in a match than a tournament." Krakatoa (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Support In my opinion, the main issues are solved, the article fulfills FA criteria.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.