Jump to content

Talk:Harold Cottam

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harold Cottam. 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) 08:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Work still needing attention

[edit]

I have expanded this article significantly from the stub over the last few days and added numerous sources.

At this time, the following work still needs attention:

Published Commentary/Analysis/Synthesis from Expert Sources

[edit]

The following topics would be much stronger with secondary source perspectives + evaluations, preferably books:

1. Senate/British inquiries

  • whether Cottam/Bride withheld information or knowingly sent false information during the journey back for the purpose of selling their exclusive stories to the New York Times
  • whether they were actually too busy sending passenger lists and passenger messages to respond to journalists
  • whether Rostron had actually ordered them not to respond to reporters
  • what actually happened to Ismay's telegram

2. Why Dean may have hesitated in responding to Titanic's first CQD

  • brief discussion of CQD vs. SOS
  • Titanic as "unsinkable"

Need Secondary Sources

[edit]

Facts in question - conflicting sources on times & days of messages (partially due to difference's in ships' time)

Early & later life biographical information - need more details with better sources. The sources included at the moment are from an online Titanic project with original research from interviews with family members + the poorly sourced "Encyclopedia Titanica." There was more information from these sources that I was reluctant to include because I cannot find supplementary evidence for it. Would prefer to have book sources for these.

Pictures

[edit]

Several suitable photos exist online; it is a matter of finding one that is permissible to use and writing the fair use rationale for it.

1. Better profile picture. Either a better quality copy of this picture or a better picture from circa the same period.

2. Picture of Cottam's blue plaque in Lowdham.

3. Other pictures of Cottam, from early or later in life. Specifically, there are a few pictures of him at the British telegraphy school or using a telegraph in other circumstances. It is unknown whether any of these is available to use.

2602:30A:C045:4390:D0D4:77E8:2B65:A4BA (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

[edit]

In May, this article was nominated to be recognised as a Good Article. Unfortunately, the nominator now seems to be retired. If anyone interested in the topic wants to adopt the article and shepherd it through the review process, please make a note on the review page. If there is no interest by the afternoon (British Summer Time) of Saturday 31 August, I will procedurally close the review. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Harold Cottam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harold_Cottam&oldid=1206804541"