Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)/GA1

GA review
I've read the article with great interest. I feel that there are several significant points to be addressed before it can be raised to GA status, but I'm prepared to help with suggestions as to how to deal with these.

My main area of concern I have is related to prose style, including MOS issues. There are one or two points of accuracy, and some minor points which I will list. I think that all the issues can be resolved quite quickly.

Style, MOS etc
In the body of the article there are various instances of the use of words which are not appropriate to an encyclopedia article, and/or phrases which sound awkward. For example:-
 * The lead does not comply with MOS, in that it does not properly summarise the contents of the article. The biographical details in your first paragraph could be included in an "Early life" section, which could be combined with "Early naval career". The rest of the lead could then be expanded.
 * "smashed" to describe Shackleton's beating Scott's furthest south record is slangy and inappropriate
 * "distraught" to describe the feelings of the party that found Scott's tent is too emotive for an encyclopedia article
 * "passed away" is a genteel euphemism. Just say he died
 * So is "laid to rest". Just say "was buried"
 * "the Pole in earnest" is an odd phrase, that might be best deleted altogether
 * (added later) The last sentence of the article sounds too mawkish and sentimental for an encyclopedia article. It smacks of personal opinion - who has said this, other than you? It should be omitted.

There are also instances of inadequate narrative. Some examples:-
 * The sequencing in the 2nd paragraph of the Imperial Transantarctic section needs attention. Endurance sank on 21 November 1915 (having been abandoned since 27 October). Elephant Island was reached on 13 April 1916. Your narrative makes it sound as though, after the sinking, it was a 5-day journey to the island. You must expand this - no need for masses of detail, but don't leave obvious gaps in the story.
 * In the same section, who were the "they" who rebuilt the lifeboat? From your text it sounds as if it was Crean and Hudson!
 * Towards the end of this section you say: "They arrived at the whaling station at Stromness and organised the rescue of the 22 men..." etc. "They" didn't organise the relief, Shackleton did - over a period of months. You shouldn't have jumps like this in the narrative; you needn't go into lots of detail, but expand a little.


 * Thanks Brianboulton, I agree with all of these comments. I will check the ones concerning accuracy.  I rewrote the lead section as more of a summary of Crean's life.  Let me know if you have any feedback on it.  One thing I fretted over was stating Crean gained a reputation of being "tough and dependable", but I left it because in all the books I read, this was really central to his character, and this is a biographical page so I think the character of the man is important. I believe this statement is easily defendable by viewing the entire article, which is referenced throughout. I also addressed bullets #2-7 above as you suggested.  Will do more when I have time. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you're responding. A couple more points: in the lead you refer to Scott both as Robert Falcon Scott and Robert Scott, both wikilinked. Later in the article you call him Captain Scott. My advice: call him Captain Scott in the lead, and Captain Scott or simply Scott thereafter, with one wikilink in the lead. Forget the Robert Falcon stuff - Captain Scott will link you to the right article. Secondly, I suggest you alter "Legacy" heading to "Crean remembered" or something similar.
 * "Crean remembered" is a bit exciting for a section heading. WP (the nebulous entity) prefers the drier, more clinical headings in general. Yomangani talk 14:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I left the first instance of "Robert Falcon Scott" with the wikilink (I like the full name for the first reference), and referred to him as Captain Scott throughout, except where used twice in the same sentence in which case I just say "Scott" the 2nd time. Also I changed "Legacy" to "Tributes".  I also addressed the three bullets above concerning gaps in narrative, rebuilding of James Caird, and rescue.  We're getting there!  Oh yeah, Happy St. Patty's day (even though the timestamp says the 18th...)  Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy
A couple of points:-
 * Please check the date of Crean's promotion to PO 2nd class, which you predate the Discovery Expedition. In all the listings of expedition I have seen, Crean is described as seaman or Able Seaman. He appears in AB uniform in the expedition photo in Voyage of the Discovery, and Scott describes him as a "very fine, strapping AB". You have cited his 1899 promotion to Smith, but Smith could be wrong (or Smith is right and everyone else, including Scott, is wrong?)
 * Re. crossing of S. Georgia you refer to the threesome's return to the east coast. Didn't they cross from the south coast to the north?
 * Ah-ha, nice catch regarding Crean being an Able Seaman when joining Scott. According to Smith, Crean had a brush with naval authority in Dec 1901 and was summarily demoted to Able Seaman.  So you are right, when he met Scott this was his rank.  I added the detail & citation.  Which makes one wonder, if he was not demoted, would Scott have replaced his deserting Able Seaman with another of the same rank, in which case PO Crean would not have been chosen?  Interesting.  Also I deleted the sentence on the threesome's return to the east coast, I didn't check the geographical accuracy of this but the sentence just seemed superfluous. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A good bit of research on your part, to discover the Crean demotion - which doesn't figure in any of the books I've read. I  wonder what he did? Whatever it was, it was only just before he joined Discovery, which left Lyttleton on 21 December.  Anyway, the sequence in ranks now makes sense, so well done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Afterthought)What does Crean's Naval Service record say? (your ref 7) Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it was a reference in Michael Smith's book. I changed the citation to indicate where the Naval Service record reference comes from. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Niggles

 * Why use bold for ship's names? This overemphasis spoils the look of the text.
 * You don't need to "See Also" Scott and Shackleton, since they are linked in the article.
 * "In the Spring of 1912", meaning October, is confusing for Northern Hemisphere readers. Perhaps:"After the 1912 Antarctic winter..."
 * Why is Warrant Officer italicised in the ITAE section?
 * Inconsistent spelling of Annascaul - only one n in the Later Life section
 * You should indicate the location of the South Polar Inn
 * As Crean's expeditions were all British, and he was in the British Navy, and as Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at that time, I think British spellings should be used. (sombre, not somber - they may be others I missed).

I will help in any way I can to resolve these issues. The article is well worth the effort. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed all of the above, except the "Spring of 1912" statement. It just flows a lot better than "After the 1912... etc" I thought about just saying "In October 1912" but that doesn't convey that they needed to wait until spring to go on the search.  Must it be "Northern Hemisphere-centric"? I think it could stay as is. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My suggestion isn't Northern Hemisphere-centric - I'm suggesting a form of words suitable for both hemispheres. Yours, however, is Southern Hemisphere-centric! Brianboulton (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken, I changed it to "the Antarctic spring of 1912" Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Some further points
I have been through and fixed a number of ndashes, nbsps, metric conversions and datelinks. While doing so a few more points came up.
 * I have revised the para in the Discovery section that deals with the sledging trips with Barne, and the achievement of a temporary Furthest South. I found the earlier version a bit awkwardly worded, and I don't think it put this furthest south into the context of the main southern journey.
 * In Reference No. 6 you have cited Crean's Naval service record. Did you see this in a book? If so the book and page ref should be given. Same for Ref No 31
 * Fixed, cited Smith's book. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You begin the Terra Nova section by asserting that "Scott wrote of his great admiration for and trust of the three friends, Lashly, Crean and Evans". This entry in October 1911 includes a general encomium for most of the party; the part to which you refer reads: "Crean is perfectly happy, ready to do anything and go anywhere, the harder the work, the better. Evans and Crean are great friends. Lashly is his old self in every respect, hard-working to the limit, quiet, abstemious, and determined". I think that your paraphrase is a little too free. It's worth using the quote, but your summary should be closer to the original.
 * (added later) My point is that this part of the journal (actually a quote from a letter home) does not single out Crean, Lashly & Evans for special praise. Scott was obviously in a benign mood, and praised lots of people - Wright, Bowers, Oates, someone called X and someone called Y, as well as Crean, Lashly and Evans.  What I would suggest is something like this: "In a letter home in October 1911 Scott recorded that Crean was "perfectly happy, ready to do anything and go anywhere, the harder the work the better", and cite this to "Scott, letter home October 1911 included in diary".  (I note that you cite Scott's diary several times although no version of the diary appears in your sources. If you are citing someone else's quotes from the diary you must make this clear)
 * The whole first sentence seemed a bit spurious, since it originally talked about all 3 men, but this article is about Crean. It seems to me to be a better lead-in to start the first sentence by establishing that Scott held Crean in high regard, then mention when he was selected for the expedition, then flow into the expedition itself and Crean's accomplishments. So I deleted the whole first sentence and replaced it. In citation #13 Smith actually says that Crean was one of the first Scott selected. Citation #14 places the date with a letter from Scott to Crean. Changed Citation #18 to reflect it's a quote reprinted and cited in M. Smith's book.Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the same section you describe Bowers as "the inexperienced..." That's a little unfair, it tends to single him out as a chump. Can you mitigate this a bit? (The less experienced...?)
 * Well, Bowers was inexperienced at Polar travel... I just wanted to show that Crean took on a leadership role even though Bowers was in charge of the three. In the end I couldn't think of a concise way to say this, so I just deleted "the inexperienced"... after all this is an encyclopedia not a novel or biography... Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Following on from this you say that Crean "probably" saved the mens' lives. Is this yours, or someone elses's opinion? If yours you shouldn't say it, if someone else's, cite it.
 * I think anyone would reasonably conclude he "probably" saved their lives. If Crean had not acted it's possible they would have drifted back to shore on their own, or if the two remaining men had to wait a few more hours they might have tried jumping from floe to floe to safety and made it. I think "probably" is not a strong word, and the whole episode is cited in Cherry-Garrard's book. At any rate the men were in danger, Crean acted boldly, and they were all saved.. I think the accomplishment warrants a mention here. Let me know what you think. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw "remarkable" in your South Georgia crossing description. That, too, is an "opinion" word that needs citing.
 * I'd disagree with this. We aren't aiming to rid the encyclopedia of adjectives with the cite policy. Would anybody reasonably consider it "unremarkable"? Yomangani talk 14:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OK, leave it - I just thought "remarkable" was a bit too exciting for Wikipedia Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More specific citation of the Armitage quote required
 * OK, added citation. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Very minor point: decide whether Cape Evans or Hut Point is your base for calculating journey distances. At the moment you give One Ton Camp as 130 miles from Hut Point, but in later journeys you refer to the distance from Cape Evans. There ought to be consistency. PS I've added a footnote to explain "Hut Point". Please check this & if you're happy with it, leave it. Or redraft it if you like, it's only a suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the part that mentions One Ton Camp, did you change it from Hut Point to Cape Evans? It currently says Cape Evans so I'm not sure if there's still a problem...? I left the Hut Point footnote, I think it's helpful. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got myself mixed up here. What I meant to say was that in the opening para of the Terra Nova section you refer to One Ton Depot as being 130 miles from Cape Evans, but later, when you are describing the polar journey, you refer to the return distances to Hut Point. My references tell me that 130 miles was the approx distance of One Ton Depot from Hut Point, so to save bother I've now altered this in the test. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even smaller point; WP:layout requires External links at the end of the article.
 * OK, I will move External links to the end. By the way, I had requested several more photos from sources on the Internet including the South Pole Inn and Crean's gravesite, using the Wikipedia form letter for requesting use of photos. I got no response. Michael Smith's book has great family photos but I have no idea how to contact the family to use them. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead
You mentioned earlier about describing Crean in the lead as "tough and dependable", without citation. Huntford's Shackleton biography describes Crean as "tough, determined and experienced", which is close enough. Your reading list has a different version of Huntford's book than mine, going by the IBSN, but the reference is in Chapter XXXII. This chapter also mentions something you may wish to incorporate into the article - Shackleton had apparently earmarked Crean as one of the elite party of six to make the transcontinental crossing, had Endurance landed.

When you've dealt with these relatively trivial points I want to discuss the lead with you again. It's nearly right, but not quite - needs a little more work. I hope you can return to the article soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation There needs to be more detailed citation. ISBN, publisher, date published, author (F. Surname), publication date and that sort of thing.see Citing_sources. Also try to bring in some internet citations. Just type in Tom Crean into any search engine.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC) What the Heck! I'll do it for you. just click here


 * OK, you've dealt with the remaining minor points, and I've fixed a few bits and pieces myself which it didn't seem worth hassling you about. Sorting out the lead is the only remaining main obstacle. I wouldn't worry too much about following up the image requests you mention; you could, however, brighten up the article with some stock images from Commons, in the longish Terra Nova and Endurance sections. No need to overdo it, though. You should however deal with the "Citations" points, above - minimally, insert publishers' names and year of publication in your reading list. I noted, too, that you cited one reference to SPRI, which doesn't appear in your sources.


 * In a fairly short lead you have incorporated ten separate sentences! This staccato effect makes it difficult to read; can you redraft by merging some of these sentences so that the whole thing flows better? Also, rather than just saying that Crean was tough and dependable, mention some specifics - e.g. his 35-mile walk to save Evans's life, his award of the Albert Medal, his participation in the open boat journey and the South Georgia crossing with Shackleton. This sort of detail will give a proper snapshot of the man, filled out later in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading Citing_sources I made the following changes:
 * Changed "References" section heading to "Notes", formatting per Footnotes examples in Citing_sources
 * Added "References" section, formatting per Harvard referencing in Citing_sources.
 * Deleted any Further Reading which are duplicated in "References".


 * Ardeshire, I looked at the Google hits and didn't find anything useful. There are book references, tourism sites, sites on the Tom Crean play, etc. Nothing worthwhile.


 * Brian, I modified the first para as you suggested, although I found I couldn't easily reduce the # of sentences. I merged the first 3 sentences into 2.  I've been looking at it too long now, so have a look and tell me if you have any suggestions.Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review summary
This article is a carefully researched biography of an important figure in British polar exploration history. There are no significant POV or MOS issues and no apparent copyright infringements in the choice of images.

The article was developed considerably during its hold period, and the archive shows that in these discussions the main editor was fully co-operative. I believe the article to be in accordance with all GA criteria, and have accordingly passed it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)