Talk:Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket

ID of the submarine which torpedoed Peyk-i Sevket: HMS E11 v HMAS AE2

Gday. This article says HMS E11 torpedoed the ship; however, to the best of my knowledge HMAS AE2 also appears to have claimed to have torpedoed Peyk-i Sevket (pls see the articles on Gallipoli Campaign and HMAS AE2 for details and refs). I'm no expert on the topic though so wondering if this is a contradiction between sources, or if both subs made the claim, or if each sub torpedoed a different ship which was mis-identified, etc. Is this able to be resolved? Anotherclown (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Further to this: Stevens (2001) The Royal Australian Navy, p. 45 states: "Here, he torpedoed the large Turkish gunboat, Peyk I Sevket, at the same moment diving to evade an enemy destroyer...". Yet the official history, Jose (1941) The Royal Australian Navy, p. 242, quoting AE2's captain, Henry Stoker, states: "A small cruiser, judged to be of Peik e Shetrek type, previously unseen, now emerged... I fired the bow torpedo... As the vessel descended, the destroyer passed overhead close, and the torpedo was heard to hit". To me there are two issues one is the different spelling of the vessel's name (although probably a tangent), and the second is that in Stoker's account it was only the type of cruiser (i.e. class) that was identified not necessarily actually the Peyk-I Sevket itself. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I know what the discrepancy is, though it's somewhat hard to believe that Stoker mistook a 10,000-ton battleship for a 750-ton torpedo cruiser. L&G report that AE2 attempted to torpedo Turgut Reis on the morning of 25 April, which was escorted by the torpedo boat Aydin Reis (and also reference a second attack the next day, on Barbaros Hayreddin, and a third attack on the 27th on the destroyer Yarhisar, neither of which is mentioned in the AE2 article - both on page 35, if you're interested).

To seal the deal, Peyk wasn't torpedoed until 6 August 1915, so the Australian claim is a few months off. Parsecboy (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Gday thanks for clearing this up. With this in mind I've reworded the Gallipoli Campaign and HMAS AE2 articles - here [1] and [2]. I believe Stevens was using the Official History (Jose) as his source but might have overstretched in his interpretation. According to the OH Stoker said it was "A small cruiser, judged to be of Peik e Shetrek type..." not that it actually was Peyk-i Şevket. Anyway could you possibly review my changes to these other articles for a sanity check pls and let me know what you think? All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I also added a bit to the HMS E11 article. Anotherclown (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That looks good to me, though I think we ought to add a note to both articles stating that it was more likely Turgut Reis, based on Ottoman records (or at least point out that no Ottoman record of a torpedo attack on Peyk-i Sevket that day in that location exists, and the other ship of the class, Berk-i Satvet, had already been mined off the Bosporus). It would be better if we had definitive proof that Peyk was somewhere else that morning (and it likely exists in the Turkish Navy's archives, but I doubt either of us has access or can read Turkish), but unfortunately L&G don't mention any activity for the ship in late April. It does seem that she never went to the Dardanelles after the outbreak of war, having been kept in the western Marmara and in the Black Sea as far as I can tell, but that's just a hunch. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually I wonder if rather than Turgut Reis maybe AE2 fired on some other ship entirely (a gunboat or small cruiser which it misidentified)? As you said it would seem hard to mistake such a large battleship for a much smaller one. That said I agree we should add a note to said articles highlighting the discrepancy re AE2 and the Peyk-I Sevket-class cruiser as per the sources you have used here (it would probably make Wiki one of the more complete sources on this as all sources I've seen, admittedly only Australian ones, don't seem to have picked this up). Unfortunately without direct access to the sources I don't feel in a position to write the note accurately though. As such if you get some time would it be too much trouble to ask you to add something on this at some point? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 18:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Parsecboy, I've finished a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I assess that it meets or exceeds the complete criteria for passage to Good Article status. Before its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that must first be addressed. Thank you for all your diligent work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the cruiser, establishes the cruiser's necessary context, and explains why the cruiser is notable.
• The Peyk-i Şevket-class cruiser image is released into the Public Domain in the US, and because it is properly licensed, it is free to use in this article.
• The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Design

• As is the case with Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet, the namesake of Peyk-i Şevket should be briefly mentioned here.

• I'll check on this when I look at Berk later today.

• This isn't a deal breaker for passage to GA, but I recommend after its passage that if this information becomes available, to please add it to this section as the reader may be curious of the Ottoman Turkish meaning of its name.

• Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated at the end of the sentences and paragraphs in numerical order. However, this is merely a suggestion as WP:INTEGRITY may allow the usage of inline citations within a sentence.
• Sea trials should be wiki-linked in the first paragraph of this section, rather than in the first paragraph of "Service history" since she is mentioned as having "displaced 775 t (763 long tons; 854 short tons) while on trials." Sea trials should be de-linked in the "Service history" section.

• Fixed.

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Service history

• Sea trials should be wiki-linked in the "Design" section, as it was the first mention, and de-linked here.

• Fixed per above.

• The image of silhouettes of the major warships of the Ottoman Navy in 1914 is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• Similar to the question at hand regarding Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet, do we know why was interned for the duration of the Italo-Turkish War in the Suez Canal. It's probably for similar reasons to the Berk, so it should be listed here if any of your sources indicate the rationale behind this move.

• At the time, Egypt was under a de facto British protectorate, and belligerents that enter neutral territory are interned for the remainder of the conflict. Granted, Egypt was still technically part of the Ottoman Empire, so the internment was illegal (at least according to the 1907 Hague Convention) but then the British protectorate over Egypt itself had no legal basis. This is all probably too far on a tangent to be included in the article. There's the article on internment, but it's almost entirely concerned with internment with relation to concentration camps - perhaps a link to the wiktionary entry would work better?

• This isn't necessary, perhaps mention that they were interned during the conflict as Egypt was under a de facto British protectorate instead.

• As mentioned above, per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated at the end of the sentences and paragraphs in numerical order. However, this is merely a suggestion as WP:INTEGRITY may allow the usage of inline citations within a sentence.
• Otherwise, this section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.
• Parsecboy, thank you for all your hard work on this article and for addressing each of my comments in a timely manner. The only outstanding fall outside the criteria for Good Article status, so I leave those with you as recommendations for the future as more information becomes available. In the meantime, I feel comfortable passing this to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)