Talk:HMS Doterel (1880)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Benea (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

I appreciate that there is little to say, but can the introduction be expanded a little further, maybe to cover her designed role and operations, the recovery of the wreck, the investigations and their discoveries, their effects, etc.
Instead of whole sections for just one or two sentences on the design and construction, try amalgamating these into one introductory section. See featured article HMS Speedy (1782) for an example of this approach.
Could you explain what sort of things 'constabulary duties' might involve when it is first mentioned.
These two sentences appear to be contradictory - 'They were thoroughly obsolete by 1880, in the sense that they could neither fight another major warship, nor outrun it, and were therefore unable to take part in contemporary naval warfare against the ships of another great power. Nevertheless, their intended role called for considerable range at little cost, and enough weaponry to enforce the petty disputes and to wage the colonial wars of the British Empire.' This reads as they were unable to take part in naval battles and fight the warships of the great powers, but surely that is not what they were designed to do? If they were able to carry out the constabulary duties effectively and cheaply, then they could not have been thoroughly obsolete?
Perhaps explain in a note who the Feinians were, and if there was any particular reason to suspect their involvement. Had there been any previous bombing incidents for example?
This section is a little convoluted - 'A surviving crewmember of Doterel, upon smelling the compound while on board Indus, stated that he had smelled xerotine siccative before the explosion of Doterel. He explained to authorities that a jar of liquid had cracked while being moved below deck. Subsequent investigation revealed that just before the explosion in Doterel, two men were ordered to throw the jar overboard. While cleaning the leaking explosive liquid from beneath the forward magazine the men may have broken the rule of not having an open flame below decks.' After reading it a few times I take it to mean that the xerotine siccative was in a jar, and the jar cracked and was disposed of, after leaking some of the explosive material. Men were ordered to clean it up, but ignited the material, which then exploded the magazine. The crewmember realised this when, some time later, he served on the Indus and smelled the same smell. Can this be made clearer?

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
What makes maritimequest.com, wrecksite.eu and patbrit.org reliable sources? There is heavy reliance on primary sources, but little in the way of secondary sources. More of these should probably be consulted, especially if the reliability of the websites is called into question. OR generally looks fine, but secondary sources should really be employed more heavily as a safeguard, as OR can unintentionally creep in through primary sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
You should add alt text if you want to take this article further, but as far as I know, it is not a requirement for GA status
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article is in pretty good shape, but the issue with the sources could be a sticking point. I'll have a look myself to see if there's anything I can recommend. In the meantime I'll put it on hold to let you address these issues.

The article is in good condition, though it hasn't been worked on in a while. While I feel there is a little more to be said on some details, the article can be reasonably considered to be comprehensive in its coverage of the major points. But for a few issues, such as the sourcing and the length of the lead, I would be happy with passing it. Presumably the nominator is understandably busy at the moment, so I'm going to fail this review for now, having kept it open for longer than the usual period. I look forward to further work and a renomination when the nominator, or other editors, have more time available, as there is certainly GA potential here. Benea (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions by Ryan Vesey[edit]

When you state that there is a large amount of primary sources, are you referring to the information from the house of commons? The sentence which stated that they were obsolete is unsourced. The combination of the fact that it is unsourced and that it contradicts the next sentence leads me to believe it should be removed. What do you think? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed telegrammed to 34telegrammed. What does 34telegrammed mean? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well not just them, but to be clear I don't have a problem with them at all. It's more the preponderance of primary sources and a lack of secondary sources, especially when it comes to the sinking and the investigations. Some more up-to-date scholarship would be very useful here to build on the information from the primary sources. It's your call about the obsolete statement, but removing it unless it can be contextualised with the following sentence makes sense. As to 34telegrammed, that can be attributed to a cat on the keyboard I'm afraid. Benea (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just getting ready to remove it, but when I reread the paragraph, I don't think it is extremely contradictory. I will rewrite it later to avoid confusion. The ship was obsolete in that it was useless in a full-scale war; however, for minor policing done by Great Britain throughout the world, it was useful. I also have one request. I am packing up and getting ready to move to college on Monday. I will be on the road for three days and will be busy adjusting after that. Is it possible that you can put a longer than average hold on this nomination? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind doing that, but to be honest the better option might be a quick fail in that case. You probably don't want to rush settling into college life, or have this hanging over your head while you get adjusted. You'd then have all the time you needed/wanted to work on the article before renominating it. Benea (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before doing that, you should leave a note on User:Shem1805's talk page. He was also a major contributor to the article. If he isn't going to be able to make many improvements, give me until Monday evening and I'll see what I can do. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All noted, but also busy in real life. Shem (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fenian connection can be expanded. I haven't got the time for this at the moment, but Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa claimed that the Fenians had planted "infernal devices" in Doterel and other Royal Navy ships. The claim is supported by www.maritimequest.com, which is already in the references, and contemporary newspaper accounts of the details abound (try a Google search for "hms doterel fenian Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa"). Sorry not to just do it myself. Shem (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would indeed by very interesting, echoes of Fritz Joubert Duquesne there. I've added some details on the colonial missions of these ships, and taken out the obsolescence issue. While I remember, can we have a page reference for the the Preston & Major cite? Benea (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]