Talk:George H. D. Gossip

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Ljleppan in topic Indirect reference to theaerodrome.com
Featured articleGeorge H. D. Gossip is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 6, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 28, 2008WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
January 2, 2009Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Why not B Class?

edit

Why doesn't this article qualify for B Class? Apart from an image of Gossip, I can't imagine what it lacks. Krakatoa (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here is my assessment of the article (this version) against the criteria for B-class.
  1. "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary."
    No problem on this side.
  2. "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies."
    No problem on this side. Of course we could muse about an "Influence" section, but I just guess Gossip was too weak a player to have any notable influence on the chess world.
  3. "The article has a defined structure."
    No problem on this side.
  4. "The article is reasonably well written."
    No problem on this side.
  5. "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate."
    No problem on this side. Of course a picture of Gossip would be welcome, but if there is none available, let it be.
  6. "The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way."
    No problem on this side, as far as it is possible to present a chess article in an accessible way.
So I think the article is worthy of B-class, and I will raise it as such. SyG (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit
  • "A New Chess Book". New York Times: 13. May 13, 1888. Retrieved 2008-11-12. NT times review of 2nd edition of Gossip's "The Chess Player's Manual" (1888): lot of good material in appendix by Lipschutz; Gossip's part has unusual breadth of research; major grumbling about Steintz's claim of superiority over Morphy - something for everyone here. --Philcha (talk)
Nice find. Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Review of George H.D. Gossip

edit

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/George H.D. Gossip. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Diagrams

edit

I agree with the decision to present 2 diagrams side-by-side for each game. However in a window with 4:3 aspect ratio ("traditional" screen proportions, not widescreen) they severely cramp the text. I'm therefore changing them to the "small" format. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:George H.D. Gossip/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This is probably the best Wikipedia entry about any chess master, and is certainly the best one which I have read. The author has done a superb job of collecting and sourcing seemingly every scrap of available information about Gossip, but without getting bogged down in uninteresting details in the article itself. He also has a knack for compiling information about the subjects's personal life, and of the opinions about the subject, in a way that is both interesting and objective. I was also pleased with the balance the author struck on the subject's personal life, touching on the significant points without getting into sludge.

This article is a model for how biographies of chess players should be written in Wikipedia, if not for all biographies. Caissanist (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll review this. I actually have some expertise in chess history, but I haven't seen this article before, and know virtually nothing about Mr. Gossip. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm passing this article. The A-class review precedes this review, and having read the article I have nothing substantive to add. I would support this article at Featured nominations if it came that way. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, that was quick! Thanks, Crystal whacker! Krakatoa (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Whingeing Pom"

edit

I put a [clarification needed] on that phrase. I don't understand the connection to Anglophobia. Could someone explain with a well-placed <ref group=note>explanation</ref>? Not essential, just hoping someone knows this. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The wiki-link was set to go to the "Australia" section of Anglophobia. Since then, someone has evidently renamed the section "Australia and New Zealand". (I've now changed the link accordingly.) That section explains:

'Pom' is a common Australasian slang word for Britons, often combined with 'whing[e]ing' (complaining) to make the expression 'whingeing Pom' - a British immigrant who stereotypically complains about everything in Australia.

Presumably that answers your question? Hoping that it does, I've removed the [clarification needed] tag. Krakatoa (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Photo of Gossip's house

edit

There is a photo of Gossip's house in Ipswich here. Apparently the house is still standing and the photograph was taken in the last few years. Two questions: (1) Is the photo worth adding to the article? (2) Would use of it in the article be deemed fair use? I can also try to get permission to use the photo, but this might be a little tricky since Edward Winter, on whose site it appears, was not the one who took the photo. Krakatoa (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the relevance of his house, so not worth adding. SunCreator (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a minor thing

edit

"His family apparently remained in Australia, where Alicia died of cancer in October 1888.[7] In 1894, Gossip's children Helen and Harold both married, in Victoria and Melbourne, respectively"

Victoria is a state, and Melbourne is a city in that state. So could someone with the book change the "Victoria" to whatever town it was in Victoria that Helen got married, or else they were both married in Victoria, or something. --118.208.154.140 (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I went back and looked at the source, and it says that Helen married in Victoria. Maybe it was an unincorporated part of Victoria not in any specific city or town. Krakatoa (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Notable games section

edit

The Notable games section seems like gibberish to me. Does this section make sense to anyone? I imagine that it uses a mixture of chess notation and prose, but it still seems entirely unreadable. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

A note at the top of the page says that algebraic chess notation is used to describe moves. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 04:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
My bad, thanks for the reply. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Better section title?

edit

Can we find a better title for the "Non-chess adult life" section? It sounds a little contrived... – ukexpat (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations

edit

What a fascinating fellow! It's great to see such a well developed article on such an obscure figure. Congratulations to Krakatoa and the other contributors for such a fine effort.  Skomorokh  06:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why do we have a failed anti-semetic chess player as today's FA? Has the computer games industry reduced its subscription? 90.221.229.82 (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

yeah i am mildy amused by this. the front page blurb lists him as a "noted" writer, but immediately after that we learn how his chess books were harshly criticized, let alone the anti-semitic one. i have to admit though, the article is well written and looks great. (if only those energies were directed toward(s) someone who deserved it, say, Judit Polgar.

Congratulations indeed - this article is wonderful. I love when Wikipedia takes a minor (if not forgettable) figure such as Gossip and turns in a mind blowing article like this. Kudos to the editors for featuring it! Featuring a Nazi fighter pilot a few weeks ago was also interesting, as far as bringing attention to anti-Semites goes. Too often figures are overlooked for their shortcomings, and Wikipedia continues to open my mind. And btw I'm no where near an anti-Semite, just a curious reader. Zenzizenzizenzic (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

My respect for wikipedia fell by yet an other notch. Pokemon, star wars, star treck articles are nuked, because they aren't "notable" enough. But an overspecialized article on an extremely obscure, unimportant chess player 100 years ago get featured status and promoted to the main page. In all fairness, it should be deleted, this is not chess-pedia, its a general purpose encyclopedia, right? Wikipedia is losing editors for a reason, for this kind of shity double standards.--Deweirdifier (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well done for, in a certain person's words, writing an "overspecialized article on an extremely obscure, unimportant chess player 100 years". I think these are exactly the kind of articles WP needs, keep up the good work and the excellent research. Ignore the critics, it's wonderful work. Waygugin (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
This means that you would support an article on Bulbasaur? --Deweirdifier (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I would like reading a well thought out article on Bulbasaur. I don't know if you noticed but sit-com characters occasionally get featured status. The erudition there may be a bit humorous, but nonetheless a part of what makes Wikipedia great. Zenzizenzizenzic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC).Reply

Lock article while on main page

edit

There is already vandalism - someone added a link to the very beginning of the article. 212.10.52.48 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's the joy of getting an article on the Main Page - people add witty things like "He was born with a vagina.", "He was convicted of dick sucking." and such. Thanks to everyone who diligently reverted this and other vandalism. Krakatoa (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

"history may have judged him unfairly"

edit

There may not be an issue with writing detailed biographies on forgettable individuals (writing in wikipedia is just a hobby after all and eventually most people that did have some impact will get their due bio), but I do take issue with the introduction ending in "history may have judged him unfairly". The article describes Hatfeild Dingley Gossip as a whining, self-possessed person, who made enemies of anyone he met. Indeed, it appears he left 4 children age 8 to 17 and his wife, dying of cancer, behind in Australia to further his "career" as a chess player in America, and felt it necessary to write an entire book on his considered opinion that Jews "almost invariably escape punishment owing to improper occult influences". It seems history has treated him more than fairly by focussing on his mediocre chess activities, rather than on the rest. Perhaps I got the wrong impression, in which case the text needs some work. Otherwise I suggest to change the last words in the intro to something like "as a chess player he may not have been quite as weak as generally held". Afasmit (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The paragraph in question is about his strength or lack thereof as a chessplayer. In context, it's obvious that the "history may have judged him unfairly" refers to that, not his other attributes - which, as you say, were less than admirable in many ways. Krakatoa (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Given that it's the final and seperate sentence of the lead I didn't read it that way at first. SunCreator (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Maybe "may have underestimated him"? Krakatoa (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Altering that wording wouldn't solve the problem of the final sentence. I know that Ken Whyld is a chess writer and hence the final sentence refers to Gossip's chess history but the current wording could leave some doubt to other readers. The current wording is acceptable, but I feel we should strive to make it as clear as possible for all readers. SunCreator (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't agree. The first sentence of the final paragraph of the lede begins "Chess writers have often mocked Gossip's play", and the second sentence continues discussing Gossip's chess strength. Since the first two sentences do not address anything other than chess strength, what could anyone possibly think the third and final sentence in that paragraph ("may have been judged unfairly") is referring to? Sure, there's a lot of poorly written crap in wikipedia and elsewhere, but this is a logical and coherent paragraph. This is an opportunity to improve the comprehension skills of our readers. If they think at all about what they are reading the meaning is clear. If they don't think, they're a lost cause anyway. Quale (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your opinion to 'improve the comprehension skills of our readers'. Wikipedia however has WP:PCR - 'People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible'. SunCreator (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Over eight years late, but in the interest of clarity I've altered it to "history may have judged his strength unfairly". Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Spelling

edit

Are we 100% sure it's "Hatfeild", not "Hatfield"? DS (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Krakatoa (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Note this footnote: "Winter August 6, 2007, discusses the unusual "Hatfeild" spelling." Krakatoa (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George H. D. Gossip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Indirect reference to theaerodrome.com

edit

Endnote #12 cites a small section to an author who is in turn referencing the website theaerodrome.com. The current consensus is that theaerodrome.com is generally unreliable (see archived discussion on WP:RSN). Could someone with access to "Whyld July 2001" check whether that contains the same information, preferably cited to a more reliable source? -Ljleppan (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ Elo 1978, p. 192.
  2. ^ "April 1889 rating list". Chessmetrics. Retrieved 2008-12-04.
  3. ^ Jeff Sonas. "Chessmetrics Player Profile: George Gossip". Chessmetrics.