Talk:Harold Cottam/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk · contribs) 14:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to review this, but it looks like the nominator has retired. The major editor appears to be an unregistered user who hasn't edited the page for nearly a year; as their IP address seems to be dynamic it doesn't seem that there is an obvious talkpage to leave a message on. However, I have left notes on the article talkpage and on the talkpages of Wikiproject History and the Wikiproject Transport maritime taskforce in case anyone wants to pick it up. If there's no interest in following through on the review in the next 48 hours or so (Saturday afternoon UK time) I will procedurally close the review; else I will begin reviewing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LLcentury: [fixed ping] Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: Howdy hello! I would be willing to shepherd this through GA. As a note, it's a holiday weekend here in the US and I'll be away for a few days, so I probably won't be able to respond to comments until September 3. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahoy, cap'n!
- Okay, on first look through the article, there are a two obvious concerns:
  1. Reliability of sourcing: there are three sources I am particularly concerned with. These are: 1. Encyclopedia Titanica, which appears to be user-generated. 2. Aurora Brynn's Titanic Heroes, a personal web page. 3. IMDB.
  2. Uncited content: There are three paragraphs in the body which do not end in a citation – at GA level every paragraph should really be cited.
- Will do a full review later. Hope you have a good Labor Day weekend! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the questionable sources, replacing them with CN tags or just removing the material, and have tagged the others. Finding better sources will be the trouble. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

Prose generally looks okay. A couple of issues:
- stating they had private traffic ~~(messages)~~ for Titanic: redundancy
- Unable to convince Dean quickly enough ~~to his satisfaction~~: redundancy
- (Phillips did not survive the sinking.) A bit abrupt as a parenthetical note, I would be inclined to turn this into an endnote.
- ~~Pursuant to these questions,~~ Cottam testified that, although he was an employee of the Marconi Company, aboard ship, the captain's orders superseded those of the company.: redundancy/weird phrasing
- Cottam received a "hero's welcome" when the Carpathia reached New York: not clear whether these quotation marks indicate that "hero's welcome" is a quotation (in which case it needs a source) or are scare quotes, in which case they can be removed.

Done Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two further sourcing problems leap out:
- Cottam did not mention this point in either inquiry in 1912, nor in the news story he gave to the New York Times immediately upon landing in New York. Rostron also does not mention it. However, various sources have speculated why Dean might have questioned the report. Some cite CQD's status as an all-purpose distress call, not necessarily signifying loss of life. Others point out that since CQ by itself simply means "calling all stations", it is possible there was doubt whether Cottam heard the call correctly. It is also mentioned that, because SOS had been adopted in 1908 (although not widely used by this time), it might have been expected to hear that in a true emergency. This entire section appears to be unsupported by the source given at the end of the paragraph.
- The role went to Alec McCowen.: citation needed.
"Smay Message Not Sent for Two Days": I don't have access to the NYT's archive, but I suspect this ought to be "Ismay Message"...
The main problem with the article, which I suspect may end up sinking this nomination, however, is the fact that virtually all the sources are essentially primary sources. For an event which happened more than a century ago, and has been as well-covered in scholarship as the Titanic, some secondary sourcing is badly needed for original research/neutrality reasons. Otherwise we get things like:
- According to Rostron's Senate testimony, both First Officer Horace Dean and Second Officer James G.P. Bisset were there on watch, although Rostron was reportedly asleep in his cabin at that time. Bisset's book and Cottam's 1956 BBC interview agree that only Dean was on watch, Bisset having already been relieved. Two contradictory alternatives presented without explicit comment as to which one to believe. If we were using academic sources, we could follow (or at least comment on) academic consensus as to which is correct.
- Unable to convince Dean quickly enough to his satisfaction, Cottam rushed down the ladder to the captain's cabin and awakened Rostron. Rostron testified at the Senate inquiry that both Cottam and Dean came to wake him. An even worse example. We give Cottam's side of the story in Wikipedia's voice, and Rostron's as "Rostron testified". Why? If it's because a reliable source says we should believe Cottam, that source isn't given anywhere.
Finally, my god there are so many direct quotes here. It's really at the point of overuse. Take the following passage:

Rostron immediately "gave the order to turn the ship around," and then "asked the operator if he was absolutely sure it was a distress signal from the Titanic." Cottam said that he had "received a distress signal from the Titanic, requiring immediate assistance," gave Titanic's position, and said that "he was absolutely certain of the message." Whilst dressing, Rostron set a course for Titanic, and sent for the chief engineer and told "him to call another watch of stokers and make all possible speed to the Titanic, as she was in trouble."

Five quotations in three sentences! And pretty much entirely superfluous. As an exempli gratia, consider:

Rostron immediately ordered the ship to turn around, before asking Cottam whether he was sure that he had recieved a distress signal from the Titanic. Cottam confirmed that he was sure of the signal, and gave the Titanic's position. While dressing, Rostron set a course for Titanic, sent for the chief engineer, and told him to "call another watch of stokers and make all possible speed to the Titanic".

Not only is this more concise, getting rid of all of the boring quotations gives the last one, which actually adds colour to the article, all the more punch. There are some really fantastic quotes to be used about the sinking of the Titanic ("Come as quickly as possible, old man, the engine room is filling up to the boilers." is another excellent one!), but some of the quotations in the article are totally unnecessary.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who did the majority of the work on this article. I was aware of most these issues at the time. The superfluous quotations have been left in precisely because the sources cited are in conflict. Perhaps it would be preferable to move those sections to the talk page until the issues are resolved? Most of the secondary sources needed to resolve these conflicts are not available online. Someone with the availability to do print research could go a long way toward improving the article's quality. 2600:1700:24D0:D40:24CD:C9AA:CBA2:B264 (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see you here: input from a major editor of an article is always worth having!

Re the quotations: as the sources cited are in conflict, we clearly need to indicate that in the article – I am just not sure that such extensive quotation is the best way. We can (and should) summarise the different claims made by different sources. I don't think we should demote this content to the talkpage, though: even without a scholarly consensus on which is correct, "Alice said foo but Bob said bar" stuff is still useful content.

If you have recommendations of particular sources which you expect to be helpful but don't have access to, though, that would be something worth putting on the talkpage – other editors may be better able to find them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is inactive and the major editor to the article apparently agrees with the issues I have raised. I do not think there is sufficient interest in this article at the moment to justify keeping this review open. Failing now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]