This is the user sandbox of Browhatwhyamihere. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

hurr durr=

	Sister ship Draç, 1910
History
Ottoman Empire
Name	Musul
Ordered	1901
Builder	Ansaldo, Armstrong & Cie, Sestri Ponente
Yard number	138
Laid down	April 1904
Launched	1904
Completed	6 January 1907
Commissioned	8 January 1907
Fate	Transferred to the Turkish Navy, 1922
Turkey
Name	Musul
In service	January 1919–1920, 1924
Out of service	1924
Stricken	1924
Fate	Sold, 1926; Scrapped, 1936;
General characteristics as built
Class and type	Antalya-class torpedo boat
Displacement	165 t (162 long tons)
Length	51.2 m (168 ft 0 in) (o/a)
Beam	5.7 m (18 ft 8 in)
Draft	1.4 m (4 ft 7 in)
Installed power	2 × Ansaldo boilers; 2,700 ihp (2,000 kW);
Propulsion	2 × Shafts; 2 × Triple-expansion steam engines;
Speed	26 knots (48 km/h; 30 mph)
Complement	4 officers, 26 enlisted men
Armament	2 × 65 mm (2.6 in) guns; 2 × 450 mm (18 in) torpedo tubes;

After the Battle of Elli, the Ottoman Navy planned a landing on Bozcaada. A force of destroyers and cruisers, including Yarhisar, was to land outside the Dardanelles, engage enemy forces north and south of Bozcaada, while the steamer Plevne was to land ground troops in the town of Bozcaada.^[4] The operation began on the morning of January 4; the force moved out of the strait and observed the Greek forces. However, the troops had not yet boarded the steamer because they had not yet completed their current deployment, and the navy commander was unaware of this delay. The fleet departed at 06:00; at 07:31 they encountered Greek destroyers. The Greek destroyers attempted to draw the Ottoman force towards the main Greek force by staying out of gun range, but the Ottoman ships did not follow them and took up positions around Bozcaada.^[5] The 2nd Destroyer Division took up positions to the west of Tavşan Island, while the 2nd Destroyer Division, which Yarhisar was attached to, took up positions to the east. Mecidiye and Berk-i Satvet were to protect the north of the island, while Hamidiye went to protect the south of it.^[6] Meanwhile, the Plevne, which was to bring the land troops to the island, was still not ready due to bad weather; upon receiving this news, the commander of Hamidiye ordered the 1st and 2nd Destroyer Divisions to return to Çanakkale.^[6] Meanwhile, the 3rd Destroyer Division and battleships under the command of Colonel Ramiz, the Deputy Commander of the Navy, sailed to Bozcaada. The returning 1st and 2nd Destroyer Divisions joined the battleships. At 11:30 the main force sighted 11 Greek destroyers in the direction of Tavşan Island; when the Mecidiye and Hamidiye broke off from the fleet and attacked, the Greek destroyers turned back and sailed away.^[7] The battle between the two sides continued from 11:35 to 12:30, at which time the naval commander ordered to turn back. The ships anchored at Nara at 15:27. The operation failed because the troops had not arrived to be loaded onto the Plevne.^[7]

Footnotes

^ Amabile, Flavia (29 December 1997). "I Segreti della Ararat". La Stampa. Archived from the original on 13 July 2018.
^ Sergi, Pantaleone (29 December 1997). "Nella Nave Dei Disparati "Noi, Trattati Come Besti"". La Repubblica.
^ "Immigrati: La Nave Ararat di Provenzia Turca?". Adnkronos. 27 December 1997.
^ Büyüktuğrul 1974, pp. 258.
^ Büyüktuğrul 1974, pp. 259.
^ ^a ^b Büyüktuğrul 1974, pp. 260.
^ ^a ^b Büyüktuğrul 1974, pp. 261.

References

Gras, Yves (1994). La Guerre de Vendée. Economica.
Hussenet, Jacques (2007). Détruisez la Vendée ! Regards croisés sur les victimes et destructions de la guerre de Vendée. Centre vendéen de recherches historiques. ISBN 978-2911253348.

Ship Archives

Many of the sentences in the lead have the structure "In [Year]... things happened." This leads to a rather repetitive introduction to the article, which should be avoided as we are trying to draw the reader in. Y
The first paragraph of the lead should have slightly more to it; perhaps another sentence or two that helps to summarize the ship's whole career? Y
Is "R. Duncan / Co." the official name of the company or an abbreviation? Y
"displacement (nautical)" --> "nautical displacement" Y
Is there any information on the ship's 26 years of civilian use prior to Ottoman acquisition? That seems like a very long lifespan before being purchased for military purposes Y
Do we know who in the Ottoman administration ordered or carried out the acquisition or arming of the ship? Y
The second sentence of the history section says the ship was acquired as a rescue tug, but then the next sentence says it was deployed as a minesweeper. Was it service some kind of double-duty, or just pressed into an assignment it wasn't purpose-built for? Y
What is the Tersâne-i Âmire? Y
"On 9 August 1914, she sailed to the Dardanelles with mines and parts loaded from Istanbul on 14 August 1914" This timeline doesn't seem to line up Y
Much of the history section also falls into the trap of "On [Date], event occurred"
American vs British English is not standardized throughout, I notice "denfence" and "defense" Y
"She laid a fourth row..." makes it sound like this was referring to Mesudiye Y
Is "being mined" the proper terminology? Would "striking a mine" or somesuch be more appropriate? Y
I don't think the 20 October 1915 submarine attack in which Intibah had no role except for being nearby warrants inclusion Y
Check the grammar of "the turbulence created by the ship's propellers and the sands were cleared and..." Y
Many of the details about the later engagements of submarine E14 should probably be moved to that vessel's article if they aren't already present there.
Why did the ship need to be "smuggled" with the other steamers? Y
The smuggling incident sounds very interesting; could it be broken out into its own section and expanded on at all? Were there any public reactions to the interception?

Referencing

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". Do Aşkar 2007 and Akbaş 2007 meet this criteria, and are there any more reliable sources that could be used in lieu of them?
I don't think Submariner's VC was published in 2004, it looks like it was first printed in 1962 Y
Ref 10 confirms Bouvet was sunk primarily by the mines Y
Ref 1 confirms all basic characteristics and timeline of the ship Y
I have some close paraphrasing concerns with ref 15. The paragraph in the book is structured almost identically to the one in the encyclopedia, with some slight rearrangement and synonyms. I also think that "long-lasting repairs" has a different meaning than "lengthy repairs", with the former meaning the repairs will last a long time after completion and the latter will take a long time to complete. Y
"geliboluyuanlamak.com" looks like a personal blog; does the author have expertise in the field which would make the source reliable?
Are there any Italian or international news sources about the migrant incident? Y

[1] Amabile, Flavia (29 December 1997). "I Segreti della Ararat". La Stampa. Archived from the original on 13 July 2018.

[2] Sergi, Pantaleone (29 December 1997). "Nella Nave Dei Disparati "Noi, Trattati Come Besti"". La Repubblica.

[3] "Immigrati: La Nave Ararat di Provenzia Turca?". Adnkronos. 27 December 1997.

[FOOTNOTEBüyüktuğrul1974258-4] Büyüktuğrul 1974, pp. 258.

[FOOTNOTEBüyüktuğrul1974259-5] Büyüktuğrul 1974, pp. 259.

[FOOTNOTEBüyüktuğrul1974260-6] Büyüktuğrul 1974, pp. 260.

[FOOTNOTEBüyüktuğrul1974261-7] Büyüktuğrul 1974, pp. 261.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]