Talk:HMS Doterel (1880)

Aftermath and Causes

Should causes of the explosion come before the section "Aftermath"? Then the information about the siccative being discontinued would be moved to the aftermath section. Ryan Vesey Review me!

Ryan, I see what you're saying, but it would break the chronological narrative. I think it's fine as it stands. What would be useful is to find out where she stopped between Sheerness and Punta Arenas so that we can fill out the "Service" section a little more. Shem (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the problem I see is that I think the section heading I chose of "aftermath" has two major dictionary definitions.

1. A period of time following a disastrous event (the term of the word that is used now)
2. A consequence of a disastrous event (the term of the word that would be used if it was used for the information about xerotine siccative)

I feel like the discontinuance of xerotine siccative seems out of place. Since it appears that xerotine siccative was the cause of the explostion, maybe it would make sense to split the paragraph and use more information about how the xerotine siccative exploded. If nothing contradicts this article it seems like it would give enough information for a second full paragraph. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Quote to be verified

I found an interesting quote from the captain at the bottom of this forum. I am attempting to verify the quote and thought I'd bring it to the attention of other editors. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the letter you're looking for was reprinted in The Royal Gazette of Bermuda, and is available here. Great thing, the internet! There is also a high resolution picture of two envelopes which shows that Doterel called at Madeira and Montevideo before arriving at Punta Arenas. Shem (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've hit a bit of a rich seam, and it will take a while to collate. In the meantime, if you want to incorporate stuff, try this and this. Best of all so far, is this from the NYT describing the events of the day. Shem (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

I've been asked to perform a peer review of this article, I will review it in light of the fact that it is nominated for GA consideration. I am not the GA reviewer though.

• The lead is minimal and should include more on it's construction, naming, commanding officer and cause of explosion. Keep WP:LEAD in mind, the lead should be a summary of the entire article.
  • Done. Shem (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Do you have any info on the intended use of the Doterel? Why was it down at Punta Arenas? If there is no info on the mission of the Doterel perhaps there's something on what the Osprey-class sloops were used for. I don't know if this info is readily available but it would augment what appears to be a rather sparse article.
  • Done. Doterel was a Doterel-class sloop, not an Osprey. Shem (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Can the crew section be combined say with the intro paragraph of the Design section? It's one sentence and one sentence is usually not enough to make a section. Also the wording should be "Doterel would have had a normal complement of 140–150 men." It did have a full complement when it sank, it's not hypothetical so remove the "would have".
  • Addressed - she sailed from Sheerness with 160 onboard, and I've expanded the point. Shem (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Were there other ships along with her when she exploded? Was there a rescue effort or how did the survivors get ashore?
  • Addressed. Shem (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• In the Aftermath were there any official statements, memorials, remuneration for the families in England? I see the plaque at Punta Arenas I'm just wondering if anything was done back in England?
  • There's some stuff in Hansard about remuneration for the families. I'll dig in when I get a chance. Shem (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Good images.
• I see your one book is by Winfield. Since you only use one page (as far as I can tell), go ahead and put the full reference into ref #4. No need to split it out underneath since you only reference one page. Does that make sense?
  • I've added another book reference. Shem (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• At the bottom is an info box that says Doterel-class sloops, but I thought the Doterel was an Osprey-class sloop.
  • She's a Doterel-class (which were a development of the Osprey). Where did you form the opinion that she was an Osprey?
    • Sorry I missed that she was a Doterel-class ship - missed the class part of that sentence. My fault. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Or does it need re-wording? Shem (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Overall you have a tidy little article. The writing is fine, sourcing is good, images are good, it's stable. The issue the GA reviewer will likely have is with the comprehensive requirements of the GA criteria. I asked some questions that may help guide you a bit. You also need to beef up the lead. I don't think it'll take much more work and with the wait time at GAC you should have plenty of time. Best of luck to you and if you have questions please leave them on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the short review - much appreciated. Shem (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Date confusion on main page

This is showing up on the main English page with 1861, but that should be 1881?

I'm slightly confused old boy...

Could any of you chaps shed some light on this sentence? - 'flammable oil drying compound called "xerotine siccative"' - I can't bally well make it it out. Does it mean it was a flammable compound used to dry oil, a drying compound made of flammable oil or a compound designed to dry flammable oil - it's dashed unclear. Also does anyone actually know what xerotine siccative actually is? Should it have it's own article? Thanks chaps, hope you can help. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it quaintly Victorian? From the accounts I've read it was a compound provided to ships to "dry oil". I imagine this means it was a powerful solvent, and clearly the vapours were explosive in the right conditions. If I was guessing, I'd say it was much like modern petrol - a fairly light distillate of crude oil. But that would be original research. Shem (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a brief mention of it in an 1899 American Chemical Society article. Here's a reference: EXPLOSIONS CAUSED BY COMMONLY OCCURRING SUBSTANCES. Charles E. Munroe J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1899, 21 (4), pp 317–346. It was an additive to oil paint to make it "dry" (that is, thicken and harden) more quickly. It consisted of an oxidizing agent dissolved in a "most volatile petroleum product." Little wonder that it exploded! I haven't been able to find its exact composition, probably because it was proprietary. Mahousu (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding - thank you. Shem (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Found a web link to the article here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding! If you'll pardon the pun that 'dash' in the description makes all the dashed difference! Thanks chaps! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• A link to drying oil would be in order here. Reading linseed oil might help too.

I'm a furniture maker, so I have some familiarity with these oils and their fire hazard. Despite this though, I have no idea what a "xerotine siccative" was - I can guess at several things it could have been and at least three different chemical hazards that could have caused this explosion. Really it's impractical to say much more without some further referencing (probably to an old RN standard for their supply - it'll be in a filing cabinet somewhere in Pompey).

• A drying oil is a vegetable oil prepared with a drier (usually a lead compound at this time, or a mixture with another metal salt). They cure by oxidation, which is an exothermic process. Wadded-up finishing rags discarded on a hot day often cause fires. In the right conditions, the heat of curing is enough to trigger ignition.
• "Driers" (aka siccatives, even to this day) are often prepared in concentrated form, then added to a warmed raw oil immediately before use. This avoids the mixed oil going off in storage, it also reduces the risk of fire from the exothermic reaction of a drying oil, as described above. A typical recipe for such a siccative at this time would be mostly litharge (lead oxide, maybe some lead carbonate in there too) with maybe 1/8th part of manganese oxides. This is an oxidiser, so if it's suddenly mixed with anything flammable, there's a risk of fire. Mixed with turpentine (a much more common ingredient for paints at that time) it's practically a firelighter. Paint warehouses did regularly catch fire because of this stuff.
• A preparation mixed with naphtha, or other light hydrocarbon solvent (modern white spirit), could be anything in terms of active chemistry, but the carrier solvent alone would be enough to cause a risk of fire in a confined space with naked flames. This is also the least viscous of the likely compounds and the most likely to leak rapidly from a cracked jar and then form a volatile vapour in a bilge space.

So the siccative is a credible and likely culprit, but we can't expand details of what it was and how it causes a fire without knowing more. Probably through the RN's specification for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have begun a page on Xerotine siccative at User:Ryan Vesey/Xerotine siccative. I won't have time to add to it for a long while; however, if anyone would like to add to it, the effort would be appreciated. I have an accumulation of refs on the article, some of which require the user to be in the United States, but it could help you with your search. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't do searches, I ask one of the chemistry house elves to do it for me. I'll post if he finds something. He also knows a chap in the USA who is an expert on the manufacture of authentic lead boiled linseed. Either of them might know about Naval potions.

I don't think we know what XS was yet, or whether it was the 2nd or 3rd mechanism that started the fire. Terebenes and petroleum distillates are both likely constituents and likely causes, but this doesn't tell us if 2 or 3 was the cause. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Doterel (1880)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

1. 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?

1. 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.

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):

   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

6. 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)

Comments and questions by Ryan Vesey

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Unresolved Problems

This is the list of problems I'd like to get resolved before it is re-nominated to become a Good Article. Ryan Vesey 15:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Lead needs expansion. It should be two paragraphs at minimum to adequately cover the article
• Note 3, about the Fenians, seems a little choppy (not necessarily a requirement for GA)
• Sourcing quality
  • Wrecksite.eu currently sources the armament
  • Maritimequest currently sources "In September 1881, inquiries into the explosion determined that it was caused by the detonation of coal gas in the bunkers and that no crew members were at fault", part of "On 21 November 1881, an explosion occurred in Triumph caused by a drying compound called 'xerotine siccative'", "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.", part of "Subsequent investigation revealed that just before the explosion in Doterel, two men were ordered to throw the jar overboard.", and part of "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". It may be possible to remove the maritimequest citation from a number of those, some of the others can be sourced with this rather than maritimequest.
  • Patbrit.org is currently sources "Doterel was ordered from Chatham Dockyard", "143 of the 155 crew members were killed", "Reverend Thomas Bridges, a missionary at Ushuaia, presided over the funeral of the sailors killed in the explosion" and "A memorial plaque was placed in the "British section" of Punta Arenas Cemetery in 1936". I am entirely confident in the quality of the information presented by patbrit.org. But we should double source what we can.
• Overall sources and expansions note. The article could be greatly improved with the inclusion of some Spanish Language sources. This is a great one that I just found.

Note that this is not a complete list of improvements and other editors are free to expand on it. Ryan Vesey 15:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Doterel (1880). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927031340/http://www.met.police.uk/history/fenians.htm to http://www.met.police.uk/history/fenians.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612050112/http://www.nmm.ac.uk/memorials/Memorial.cfm?Photos=Yes&MemorialPage=8&MemorialID=M2373&Full=Transcript to http://www.nmm.ac.uk/memorials/Memorial.cfm?Photos=Yes&MemorialPage=8&MemorialID=M2373&Full=Transcript

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)