Talk:Ottoman minelayer Intibah/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Browhatwhyamihere (talk · contribs) 18:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting article! I read The Fall of the Ottomans by Eugene Rogan over the summer, so I'm especially excited to see if there's anything mentioned here I remember seeing previously. Fritzmann (message me) 20:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Prose

• Many of the sentences in the lead have the structure "In [Year]... things happened." This leads to a rather repetitive introduction to the article, which should be avoided as we are trying to draw the reader in.

Done, rephrased a fair majority of them.

• The first paragraph of the lead should have slightly more to it; perhaps another sentence or two that helps to summarize the ship's whole career?

Grafted a bit from the start of the second paragraph of the lead and pasted it onto the first.

• Is "R. Duncan / Co." the official name of the company or an abbreviation?

An abbreviation of the name of the company.

• "displacement (nautical)" --> "nautical displacement"

Amended.

• Is there any information on the ship's 26 years of civilian use prior to Ottoman acquisition? That seems like a very long lifespan before being purchased for military purposes

Besides being transferred to four different owners (https://www.clydeships.co.uk/view.php?ref=5739) its civilian career appears to be very uneventful.

• Do we know who in the Ottoman administration ordered or carried out the acquisition or arming of the ship?

The government.

• The second sentence of the history section says the ship was acquired as a rescue tug, but then the next sentence says it was deployed as a minesweeper. Was it service some kind of double-duty, or just pressed into an assignment it wasn't purpose-built for?

Amended.

• What is the Tersâne-i Âmire?

The main Ottoman shipyard, located in the Golden Horn. Clarified.

• "On 9 August 1914, she sailed to the Dardanelles with mines and parts loaded from Istanbul on 14 August 1914" This timeline doesn't seem to line up

Amended.

• Much of the history section also falls into the trap of "On [Date], event occurred"

Rephrased most of them.

• American vs British English is not standardized throughout, I notice "denfence" and "defense"

Fixed.

• "She laid a fourth row..." makes it sound like this was referring to Mesudiye

Clarified.

• Is "being mined" the proper terminology? Would "striking a mine" or somesuch be more appropriate?

Rephrased to "..being struck by mines".

• I don't think the 20 October 1915 submarine attack in which Intibah had no role except for being nearby warrants inclusion

Removed.

• Check the grammar of "the turbulence created by the ship's propellers and the sands were cleared and..."

Amended.

• Many of the details about the later engagements of submarine E14 should probably be moved to that vessel's article if they aren't already present there.
• Why did the ship need to be "smuggled" with the other steamers?

Rephrased. Checked the source there and it said the ship just sailed there, not was smuggled there.

• The smuggling incident sounds very interesting; could it be broken out into its own section and expanded on at all? Were there any public reactions to the interception?

Referencing

• Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". Do Aşkar 2007 and Akbaş 2007 meet this criteria, and are there any more reliable sources that could be used in lieu of them?
• I don't think Submariner's VC was published in 2004, it looks like it was first printed in 1962
• Ref 10 confirms Bouvet was sunk primarily by the mines
• Ref 1 confirms all basic characteristics and timeline of the ship
• I have some close paraphrasing concerns with ref 15. The paragraph in the book is structured almost identically to the one in the encyclopedia, with some slight rearrangement and synonyms. I also think that "long-lasting repairs" has a different meaning than "lengthy repairs", with the former meaning the repairs will last a long time after completion and the latter will take a long time to complete.
• "geliboluyuanlamak.com" looks like a personal blog; does the author have expertise in the field which would make the source reliable?
• Are there any Italian or international news sources about the migrant incident?

There is definitely some work that needs to be done before the article is passed as a GA. The prose could use expansion in some areas or rewriting and trimming in others, while there are a few referencing issues that must be addressed. I am willing to accept good faith on the source-text integrity of the Turkish references, but please take another sweep to ensure they are accurate, since there were some close paraphrasing concerns I saw on a spot check. Once you've responded to each of the points please drop me a ping so I can go through the article again. Thanks! Fritzmann (message me) 20:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Done with the majority of the tasks, but I have a few things.

• The smuggling incident doesn't appear to have been covered widely outside of Italy though it's been mentioned in plenty of their sources;

Amabile, Flavia (29 December 1997). "I Segreti della Ararat". La Stampa. Archived from the original on 13 July 2018.

Sergi, Pantaleone (29 December 1997). "Nella Nave Dei Disparati "Noi, Trattati Come Besti"". La Repubblica.

"Immigrati: La Nave Ararat di Provenzia Turca?". Adnkronos. 27 December 1997.

The incident also appears to be covered on the 29 December 1997 issue of The Guardian, though you need a paid subscription to access it.

• "The paragraph in the book is structured almost identically to the one in the encyclopedia, with some slight rearrangement and synonyms" Elaborate a bit?
• From my own research the person who wrote the article on geliboluyuanlamak.com, Mustafa Haluk Caglar, had graduated from the Turkish Naval Academy and served in the Turkish Navy for quite some time. He has also written some other articles online on the Gallipoli Campaign. (https://www.canakkaleharbi.com/yazarlar/m-haluk-caglar-profil/) The person hosting the website, Tuncay Yılmazer, while a medical doctor by practice, has a similar field of experience regarding research on the Gallipoli Campaign. He also co-wrote a few books on the subject (Sorularla Çanakkale Savaşı being one of them)
• I tend to get a bit tired when researching other sources due to my anaemia stemming from an iron deficit :p Clarifying whether Aşkar 2007 and Akbaş 2007 are truly reliable or not and finding replacement sources for them may be a bit tiresome.

Sincerely, e (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you respond individually to the points above with how you addressed each of them? That way I can easily go through and make sure nothing got missed. I'll take a second look this weekend, thanks for your work so far. Fritzmann (message me) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wilco! e (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Response

• The extraneous parts about submarine E14 have not been removed

Done.

• The inclusion of Master's theses being relied on heavily as sources has not been sufficiently justified

Removed. Replaced with Genelkurmay, which includes details covered by these two.

• If there is news coverage of the migrant smuggling event, it should be included and expanded on in the article

Done.

• From your explanation, it does not sound like geliboluyuanlamak.com is a blog by an expert, but by two hobbyists

Removed. Replaced with Genelkurmay.

• The rewrites for sentence flow are very good and improve the article by a great deal, excellent job with those
• For the close paraphrasing concerns, the text you have written is just structured very similarly to the source. i.e. the order of sentences is the same, the clauses are the same, and most of the changes are synonyms (one of which, "long-lasting", doesn't mean the same thing as the source). There were other places I checked that didn't have this issue so I don't think it is widespread in the article, but that particular paragraph stood out to me.

Rephrased.

Once these concerns have been addressed the article should be ready for promotion. Fritzmann (message me) 22:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

All set and done! e (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work; the article is much improved and ready for promotion. Fritzmann (message me) 19:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.