Talk:RV Petrel

Crew expeditions in 2015 aboard Octopus

The whole section "Crew expeditions in 2015 aboard Octopus" should be moved to another article; perhaps one about about that vessel? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed those pre-Petrel paras while just adjusting the layout. In reality they were preliminary expeditions which led to the purchase of this vessel, what might well normally go in a "Background" section.

However, while this article is in the framework of a ship article, the most important present content is the story of Allen's exploration project, and hiving off that little 2015 section somewhere else (even if RV Octopus had an article) doesn't make sense to me. Clearly this Allen project is notable in itself, and deserves its own article, in which the material here can be further expanded. Davidships (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not owned by the US Navy.

It seems someone in the MSM has misread this page, which mentions "still owned by the US Navy" but is talking about a wreck and not the RV Petrel. https://paulallen.com/Exploration/Ocean-Discoveries.aspx 81.78.238.133 (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Perhaps they read "The 76m (250ft) ship has been owned by the United States Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center since October 2022, and operated by Oceaneering International, probably sourced by BBC from Equasis, which has "owner: NAVFAC EXWC - manager: Oceaneering International Inc, Morgan City LA - since 3/10/2022". NAVFAC EXWC is based at Port Hueneme CA. Davidships (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that ("still owned by the US Navy") about a wreck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.223.25 (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It literally says "The ship remains property of the US Navy" about the wreck. 81.78.238.133 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:Springnuts removed the statements with edit summaries of "Remove unsourced claim of ownership by US Navy". The point was not unsourced. It was sourced to the BBC ([1]), who said at the time I added it "Pictures posted on social media showed the 3,000-tonne vessel, which is owned by the US Navy, leaning at a 45-degree angle.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an announcement of the purchase contract from September 2022 here:

BVI Corp., Seattle, Washington, is awarded a $12,400,000 firm-fixed-price contract (N00024-22-C-2214) for used vessel, Research Vessel (R/V) Petrel. The requirements under this contract cover the acquisition of the used vessel R/V Petrel and spares. Work is expected to be completed by September 2022. Fiscal 2022 other procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $12,400,000 will be obligated at time of award. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) — only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't see it on that url, but found it at [2]. Davidships (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ah yes - apologies, I had two tabs open it seems! Cant quite remember why that other one turned up in my search. Thanks for catching it. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the sources into the article. Springnuts (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook

A lot of material has been added, sourced from the ship’s Facebook page. I’ve removed some. Please re-add if supported by WP:RS. Springnuts (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all (not "some") such references and blanking whole sections makes improving referencing more complex and is a distinctly unhelpful approach where there are no BLP considerations requiring insatant removal. WP:SOCIALMEDIA is clear that such content is permissable about themselves or their activities, subject to five conditions, of which the first four are clearly met. The fifth, that the article is not based primarily on such sources, may well also have been met (there are 36 different refs remaining), though in any case should have been discussed here, and reviewed after time to make improvements. Davidships (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to say that it should have been discussed here before any change was made. That’s not how we work. The policy is quite clear: WP:BRD.

To the issue: a great deal of the article is based on self published sources, i.e. Facebook and their own website. It’s also pretty self-serving. We should have good secondary sources to support it. I’ve no objection to the material being put back in but it must be properly sourced. Otherwise only a very brief summary of the material which they self publish would be appropriate. Springnuts (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

… and to press the point a bit further, for example, the whole section of seven sub-paragraphs, starting with the Malta exploration, and which includes a great deal of technical information about the ship and its equipment, has no sources given whatsoever! That’s really not how we run the Encyclopedia.

WP:V says such material should be removed and the onus is on those who wish to restore it to find reliable sources. Let’s give it a couple of days to see if the source can be found. Springnuts (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ship details

I had a look at the history of this entirely unsourced section on ship details. They were inserted by the article creator, in essence a single-purpose account, and highly likely with a COI - see the edit summaries for these two diffs: [[3]] [[4]]. I will tag the section accordingly, but without sources the material should be removed as fails our verifiabililty standard. Springnuts (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other things above I'll come to this is a day or too (WP/grandpa life balance to be considered). Davidships (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At a wild guess it came from a dropbox link from the new defunct page here: https://web.archive.org/web/20211207175356/https://www.paulallen.com/rv-petrel/rv-petrel-explores-wreck-of-uss-ward which links to: https://web.archive.org/web/20211207175356/https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uj8cc9bd5e2kysz/AABq05njM8lApeNutLMTZ6D6a?dl=0. Good luck! Springnuts (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the problematic material with a short summary. Please expand as and when suitable sources become available. Springnuts (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few corrections about builder and flag

Hello, I report here the corrections I made to some inaccuracies in the article.

1. A Norwegian city "Brattvåg" and "Brattvaag Verft" which is not a company but means "dockyard of the city of Brattvaag" were listed as the builder. The ship was built in 2003 by Fincantieri and finished by Brattvaag Skipsverft AS, which is now VARD and has been absorbed by Fincantieri itself (other Wikipedia pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fincantieri#Ships_built_at_Fincantieri_(selection) and pages in other languages of the ship and the companies mentioned are also given this information, and it is in any case easily accessible on the web by searching for Fincantieri Petrel / Fincantieri VARD or from the site www.vard.com (formerly www.brattvaag.no) which has the logo "A Fincantieri Company" in the footer of the whole website)

2. The ship is currently (April 2024) sailing under the British flag as is easy to tell even from the same IMO and MMSI links posted on this page but also by simply going to any search engine and looking for IMO 926862 and MMSI 235102789. The ownership is not clear whether it is still US or UK, but the flag is UK.

Unfortunately, this page doesn't seem to be very up to date and from what I see in last years discussions there is a lot of confusion and we rely on articles that often take as their source this same Wikipedia page that has errors.

I hope I have helped, but by searching you can find more detailed information.

Bless you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.0.81.234 (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]