Talk:Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Neopeius (talk · contribs) 22:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I *have* to do this one—the ship in my series of books is a Yarhisar class scout! :) Will get to this shortly, probably this weekend. --Neopeius (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Beginning prose review:

Lead:

• "On 3 December 1915, she was torpedoed and sunk by HMS E11 off the coast of Yalova." Suggest: "On 3 December 1915, she was torpedoed and sunk by the British submarine HMS E11 off the coast of Yalova."

Design:

• "Her crew, which consisted of 7 officers and 60 sailors when she was built in 1907, consisted of 74 Turks and 17 Germans by 1915 during World War I." This feels apples to oranges. One is a matter of role, the other of nationality. This is an issue in Ottoman destroyer Samsun, too.
• "The ship's speed dropped to 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) in 1912 and 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph) in 1915." It'd be nice to know why (finding an exact citation for that ship may be difficult, but there are references in "The Ottoman Steam Navy" to the lack of maintenance and the general loss of performance that characterized all of the ships in the Turkish fleet. This is an issue in Ottoman destroyer Samsun, too.

Italo-Turkish War:

• "When the fleet arrived at Chios Island on October 2 during its return, it learned that the war had started with the news brought by the yacht İzzettin which was sent from Istanbul and the fleet was ordered to return to Marmara." Suggest: "When the fleet arrived at Chios Island on October 2 during its return, it learned that the war had started (the news brought by the yacht İzzettin, which had been sent from Istanbul) and the fleet was ordered to return to Marmara."

Balkan Wars:

• There are strange pronoun issues: "On October 29, they sailed for Varna with Mecidiye, but during the voyage they were assigned to protect the troop shipment to Midye. Yarhisar handed over her duty to Numune-i Hamiyet the next day and sailed to Varna with Mecidiye." Suggest: Variations of "it" or use the proper name or "the ship" You can also use "she/her", as in Ottoman destroyer Samsun for consistency, though it's a bit of an archaicism.

• "On November 3, she sailed to Silivri with Barbaros Hayreddin and Numune-i Hamiyet." Suggest "On November 3, Yarhisar sailed to Silivri with Barbaros Hayreddin and Numune-i Hamiyet." On a new line, it's good to make clear what the subject is. You can use pronouns afterward.

• "The next day she sailed alone to Tekirdağ and returned to Silivri on November 7. The withdrawal of the army ended on November 8." You establish at the beginning that the navy was tasked with protecting the army, but these sentences to not make clear how these activities supported the retreating army.

• "On 21 November 1912, she took part in the Battle of Kaliakra." Suggest "On 21 November 1912, Yarhisar took part in the Battle of Kaliakra." On a new line, it's good to make clear what the subject is. You can use pronouns afterward.

• "The Ottoman force sent to Varna with the mission of preventing Bulgarian attacks on Ottoman merchant ships loaded with ammunition and, if possible, destroying Bulgarian torpedo boats, consisted of Hamidiye, Basra and Yarhisar; however Basra broke down and was replaced by the torpedo boat Berkefşan." Suggest: "An Ottoman force consisting of Hamidiye, Basra and Yarhisar was sent to Varna with the mission of preventing Bulgarian attacks on Ottoman merchant ships loaded with ammunition and, if possible, destroying Bulgarian torpedo boats; Basra broke down and was replaced by the torpedo boat Berkefşan."

• "After the repair of the broken-down Berkefşan, she joined these two ships at 13:00." Suggest: "After the repair of the broken-down Berkefşan, she joined the other two ships at 13:00." (though when did Berkesfan break down? Or is this supposed to be the Basra?)

• "At a meeting held at 16:50 on board Hamidiye, she ordered Yarhisar to take position 8 miles (13 km) south of Varna and Berkefşan 8 miles north of Varna" Suggest: At a meeting held at 16:50 on board the flagship Hamidiye, Yarhisar was ordered to take position 8 miles (13 km) south of Varna and Berkefşan 8 miles north of Varna..."

• "At 00:40, in the battle that started between the Bulgarian torpedo boats and Hamidiye, she was damaged." Suggest: "A battle started between the Bulgarian torpedo boats and Hamidiye, and Yarhisar was damaged at At 00:40."

Okay, I'm going to stop here. It is my understanding that this is a translation from Turkish. That would explain the awkwardness of phrasing. I'm not going to do a line-by-line edit. My suggestion is that, using the above edits as a guide, read the article aloud and make it better. Fix the phrasing, deal with inconsistencies and unclearness. When you're done, ping me, and I'll be happy to go over this again. Also, since I can't read Turkish, it would be helpful if you referenced the citations to Büyüktuğrul to ensure they are accurate. If you can't, you'll need different sources. Good luck! --Neopeius (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Neopeius I've done all of them except for the lack of maintenance part. I've tried looking for the specific page for it on the Archive but the feed just gave me "Sorry, there was an error with your search. Please try again." e (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking my review seriously! I'll give my copy a look—it's a hard copy so it should be easier to peruse, and I'll get back to you. This week's a bit busy what with a book launch and other issues, but I'll try to get back to you this weekend. Thanks again! Neopeius (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: I am grateful that you have done my edits, but it does not appear you have made any others. I'd still like you to read the rest aloud and find any issues, as I do not want to have to do a line-by-line revision submission. Also, the issue with the Turkish sources is still outstanding (i.e. how do we know they go with the facts they are citing?)--Neopeius (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

With regard to maintenance, where you say "The engines had 5,950 indicated horsepower (4,440 kW) and could accelerate the ship to 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph) in 1907. The ship's speed dropped to 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) in 1912 and 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph) in 1915." You could add a parenthetical "(Reduced performance due to poor maintenance was a problem endemic to the 20th Century Ottoman Navy.") and cite page 28 of the Langensiepen/Güleryüz (look at the August 11, 1914 section). Whatever language you use there can be cut and paste in any Ottoman Navy ship article in a similar capacity (e.g. your Samsun article). By the way, the pdf on Internet Archive is not searchable, but the full text version is. I just searched on "maintain". --Neopeius (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC) @Browhatwhyamihere:

@Neopeius You know what? I give up. You might just as well fail this article, relive some pressure on both our backs, no? Not saying you have to take over and do a word-for-word revision but I'm just saying that I have given up all hope in this being a Good Article, since I have so much business to do in the real world, much like you. e (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Browhatwhyamihere: I will fail the article if that is what you want. I'm sorry that the process has been stressful and discouraging. I do think you could polish this article pretty quickly. That said, if you do not have time to verify the Turkish references and are just taking them on faith (please confirm) then it is probably best to leave this un-Gooded for now (and I have concerns about the Samsun article in that case). Please let me know. --Neopeius (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.