Talk:Marsala Punic shipwreck/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 14:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Will review this soon! —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma Super! Thanks for your input, I’ll begin fixing the issues shortly. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Elias Ziade, I've been mostly away and not very active, but I'm back now. Do you think you can get to the remaining issues so we can wrap this up soon? —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma Sorry was busy getting married. Will get to them the soonest. thanks buddy el.ziade (talkallam) 08:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Elias Ziade: Wow, congratulations! That is an excellent reason to be offwiki :) —Kusma (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Content review

resolved issues

Not sure the citations in the lead are needed (MOS:LEADCITE) Done. Discovery and location: operating in Punta Scario what is Punta Scario? From the source, it seems like it is a region of the sea, but it could just as well be a ship. , off the coast of Isola Lunga is much better. Link Honor Frost on first occurence in body. done. Citations to Frost could be more precise; some of the citations to Frost p. 16 might need to be pp. 15–16. On it! Gerhard Kapitan according to the source, his name is Gerhard Kapitän, not Kapitan. Done. The first ship found was apparently the "Roman Tile Wreck" and not Punic? Yes but the team failed to later re-locate that wreck. I did not believe that detail would add much to the article, and I believe the presupposition that it was "Roman" "tile" wreck is hasty in the absence of further examination and description. Marsala Punic Ship: The reconstructed Marsala Punic Ship retained its original features, primarily constructed from pine and aceraceous wood, which did not respond well to chemical preservation treatments. I do not understand this sentence. The reconstructed ship was construcyed from wood that did not respond well to preservatives? In what way did it "retain its original features"? Absolutely! Some details are not obvious after translation. One such vessel was captured by the Romans, who then replicated it with 200 units in record time. A Rhodian vessel or a Phoenician quadrireme? When did this record-breaking Roman shipbuilding happen? It is well documented by Polybius, I copied a part from an earlier article I worked on. Dating and attribution: It was the inscriptions in Phoenician alphabet found on the wood of the wrecks that made it possible to attribute the remains unquestionably to the Carthaginians Simplify, at least to "The inscriptions in Phoenician alphabet found on the wood of the wrecks made it possible to attribute the remains unquestionably to the Carthaginians". Great point. Link to Radiocarbon dating. Done. This construction system also helps us understand would prefer not to use "we" here; reword. Yes Sorry about that! Link Corvus (boarding device) (here and above). Once in the body. Lead: Content seems ok. The better-preserved aft section of the ship displayed fine waterlines in a "vase" shape, contradicting previous assumptions of rounded lines I don't quite understand what previous assumptions are being contradicted here. Did people think all Punic ships had rounded lines, or all warships, or all ships, ... ? I'll look into this and make it clearer Resurfacing and conservation: The remains of the Marsala Punic Ship were used to reconstruct a metal framework of the best-preserved section of the hull in 1979 I don't really understand what they built. Did they imitate the ship using metal? And then add the remains of the ship to this? Please clarify. another reconstruction was carried out do we know when that was? Significance: The shapes of the remains of the ships complement each other, in particular with a ram, I don't understand what the ram is doing here. The absence of a bronze rostrum, like the one found in Athlit and the presence of remnants of a wooden beak-shaped ram covered in bronze suggest a change in naval tactics, with lateral attacks replacing frontal charges. There is some context missing here. What is Athlit? When do we have a change from lateral attacks to frontal charges? (By itself, the ram instead of the rostrum probably just shows the ship was used for frontal charges, not lateral attacks; this does not show that there was any change in tactics).

Comments on GA criteria

• Prose: The article would generally benefit from further copyediting for clarity.
• References reasonably formatted. Some would like page numbers, and Navistory should have |lang=fr.
• Source reliability:
  • Anzovin is not a great source. Such "fact books" that have no references often prepetuate rumours instead of properly presenting current scholarly discourse

Used for a hook. It was the only source accessible to me that mentions that it was the oldest military ship wreck on record.

• • What makes Bocquelet a reliable source? The page seems rather imperfectly translated from French, and possibly self-published.

Replaced.

• • Why is Leveque a reliable source? Looks like a SPS

I only used him because he's easily accessible and corroborates other sources (never alone).

• • Same for Navistory.

I'll try to find alternatives where it's the only reference used. Will address others later. el.ziade (talkallam) 21:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed the website from the sources.

• Images are suitably licensed and relevant. ALT text would be nice but optional.

ALT images coming up

• I see that AirshipJungleman29 has merged some of the sections. I agree with this action, which answers my (so far unspoken) concern that some of the sections are too short. —Kusma (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Source checks

Looking at special:permanentlink/1170401809.

• 1b: ok
• 3: ok
• 9: this should (a) be more reliably sourced and (b) this is a fairly close paraphrase, very similar in structure to the corresponding paragraph in the source. Would suggest to rewrite and to use a better source, for example [1].

I removed navistory and the closely paraphrased sections. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• 14a: could not access; could you provide the quote from the source that supports the content? (no need to translate, French is fine)

I don't have access to the book at the moment. If there is anything contentious that you'd like to verify please let me know and if you prefer I can quote another, more acccessible source. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• 18: ok. You could also mention that on p. 275, Frost tells us that the alphabet used indicates the ship was built between 300 and 260 BC.
• 20: I have accessed a different edition of the book, and could find content on the battle, but what in the source supports the claim "The Marsala ships may have played a role in the momentous Battle of the Aegates in 241 BC"? Please provide the quote.

"* It's from Frost's work, sorry for the confusion. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Kusma I will tend to the above shortly. Sorry for the delay. el.ziade (talkallam) 19:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Kusma Can you please recheck? I think I answered to all of your points. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yup, all done. Passing. —Kusma (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.