Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Cape Hermaeum/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [1].

---

Battle of Cape Hermaeum

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

When I nominated Battle of the Aegates I wrote "the third and final installment of my trio of naval battles from the First Punic War". I was wrong. Missing was this, the Carthaginian's worst naval defeat of the 23-year-long war; which was swiftly followed by the Roman's worst disaster of the war - a storm sank most of their fleet, killing over 100,000. Strangely, the sources are thin, but I believe that there is enough to make it FA-worthy. I have written it from scratch, so its no doubt many blemishes are all down to me. See what you think. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Harrias

• "What, if any, the Roman losses.." Sounds wrong to me.

That's PAW Patrol, not me. Nope, I'm really not seeing any problem. But there must be other ways to phrase it. How would 'It is not known what the Roman losses were ...' suit you?

• "The modern galley expert John Coates.." This is probably something over nothing, but I was momentarily thrown about whether he was a modern galley expert or a modern galley expert. It could possibly be rephrased "John Coates, a modern expert on galleys, ..", but that might not be an improvement.

You are correct. ;-) I have tweaked it to "The modern expert on galleys John Coates"

• Is "The modern replica galley Olympias" the same as Olympias (trireme)?

It is indeed. You can tell, 'cus it is linked at first mention. :-)

• The lang template for "Ras ed-Dar" should use "ar-latn" rather than just "ar".

Ah. Makes sense. Done. Cheers.

@Gog the Mild: you mean Ah-latn  :) ——Serial ^# 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be busy with your next FA nom? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: You mean, after my current one is archived having been near-trolled back to 1937?! I might be giving it a break for a while, as it goes. Maybe visit Barnard castle, see wot all the fuss is about  :) ——Serial ^# 12:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Anything I could do to assist the miscreant duke? Last time I looked it seemed that the thing it didn't need was more opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Well; if you've got a masochistic itch to scratch, Gog, you won't find better ): do us a favour, could you do so? But don't feel pressured to say anything you don't want to. But a pair of neutral eyes, at this stage, could probably achieve more than I could. Incidentally, I'm sorry for hijacking Harrias's review: add an L4 section header if you want. I could resist the Ah-latn though! ——Serial ^# 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Polybius is critical of what he considers the poor judgement and seamanship displayed immediately prior to the storm." This raises more questions than answers for me: is there anything more about what that poor judgement and seamanship was? They had just defeated the Carthaginians in a naval battle, the seamanship couldn't have been that poor?

 *OR alert* It (almost certainly) wasn't. Which is why the next sentence includes "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship". You could found an entire department on explaining Polybius' point. There is really no end to it - one reason why I haven't gone there. See, the sea itself turned on the victorious Roman fleet and destroyed it. To the Romans these things didn't just happen - someone or something had to have angered the gods. Or, if you were a rational Greek, there had to be a hubristic human failing. Entire fleets don't sink for no reason, surely. Except even the incorrigibly religious/superstitious Romans didn't seem to buy that at the time. And perhaps Polybius expected the more worldly of his audience to nod knowingly at his fudging of the religious/philosophical implications. Und so weiter.

Just to complicate things, years later (still in the 1PW) a Roman consul lost 120 warships and 800 transports at the Battle of Phintias. Driven ashore by bad weather due to disregarding expert advice says Polybius; outfought by the Carthaginians says another source.

I really didn't feel that I could skip Polybius' opinion, but I have come as close as I dare to pointing out that the view of the consensus of Rome's military experts of the day was "Just one of those things old boy, could have happened to anyone".

That's it on a first pass; somewhat distracted by kids and PAW Patrol at the moment; will need to give it another read through later. Harrias ^talk 14:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias for disturbing your domestic tranquility to delve into this. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, is there any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I forgot I hadn't come back to this. I tend to be quieter Fri-Sun, but I'll have another look over as soon as I can. I can't see there being anything major, I did read through the entire thing before. Harrias ^talk 19:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: No rush. I suspected that it might have fallen down the back of your "to do" list - happens to me too. It was just a gentle nudge. What you think of the cricket? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

• I'm not a fan of the single sentence paragraph that now closes out the lead. It feels like it has just been tacked on. I'm sure that with a little finesse, it could flow nicely on from the previous paragraph, either as part of that paragraph, or with a bit more context in a third paragraph.

Finessed.

• Why do the Roman commanders' first names get omitted in the infobox?

The result of a discussion with T8612 in a previous FAC where it was agreed that infoboxes looked less crowded if, sometimes, Roman names were shortened. (RL calls - more to follow on this.) Apologies for the hiatus. So we agreed here that praenomina could be left out in infoboxes. I consider it similar to leaving out a more modern person's middle name or initial. Personally I would be happy to put them back in in this case.

I'm not fussed, it just seems a bit odd, and stands out in this case particularly, as they are red links. Whatever. Harrias ^talk 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Following on from above, could "What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known.." be changed to something like "What losses, if any, the Romans suffered is not known.."? To me, that sounds a far more natural construction.

You are right. But I have changed to " What losses the Romans suffered, if any, is not known", which seems even better.

• I know that this has been in every single one, and I've never questioned it before, but is "His works include a now-lost manual on military tactics.." actually relevant to this article? I assume it is to establish his credentials for discussing military matters, but given the detail gone into in the second paragraph, it doesn't seem necessary. All that said, I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it either way.

It is; I can't find a source which says that if this captured commander managed t get a book published telling his captors how to fight wars he must know his stuff, but I am trying as hard as I can to let a reader draw their own conclusions. That said, I am not wedded to it, so if you really think it jars I'll take it out.

As I say, it's not a major issue. Harrias ^talk 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know whether I make these into an issue that they are not, but "..probably made it inevitable that it would eventually clash with Carthage over Sicily on some pretext." seems to me to be a POV statement that requires inline attribution.

Ah, that was me and T8612 again, but you have a reasonable point. I have softened it up, made it more immediate, and attributed it. See what you think. If you like it but T8612 doesn't, we can thrash out some suitable wording here.

• Wikilink marines?

Done.

• I do wonder if the Invasion of Africa section is maybe a little over-detailed and long, throwing the balance of the article off a little. Also contributing to this is the shortness of the Aftermath section. The Battle of Panormus tells us that the Romans "rapidly rebuilt" their fleet; how about the Carthaginians? I think some more information about the naval dominance through the rest of the war would be useful for the reader.

I kinda see what you mean about Africa. I have trimmed it a bit. Enough?

Aftermath. Well, when a military event is over, I tend to consider it over, but I can see that approach can be overdone, "some more information about the naval dominance through the rest of the war" added. That do you?

That's it from me second time around. Harrias ^talk 18:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, thanks for that. Your points, finally, addressed; see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• SUpport I'm happy with the changes made, and that it meets the Featured criteria. In case I didn't mention, I'm playing the WikiCup game, and will claim points for this review. Harrias ^talk 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Per my review at the ACR (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

• Per MOS:LEAD the lead doesn't mention the background and aftermath sections.

Will come later back after this is solved. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Good to see you again :-). "a battle of the First Punic War" and "The Romans were attempting to rescue the survivors of an invasion of the Carthaginian homeland (in what is now northeastern Tunisia) that had failed with their defeat in the Battle of Tunis, while the Carthaginians were attempting to intercept them." covers the "Background". I have added a sentence to cover the two-sentence "Aftermath". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Carthaginian homeland (in what is now northeastern Tunisia) American northeastern?

Fixed.

• What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known; most modern historians assume there were none. The "what" makes it a question?

No. It is allowable, honest. Eg, see these 5 mn (!!) Google hits here.

• 290,000 crew and marines[note 4][49][45][52] vs "when it differs with any of our other accounts".[11][note 2]" First notes or should citations be first?

IMO notes. Fixed. Thanks.

• only 16 km (10 mi) from Carthage --> "only 16 kilometres (10 mi) from Carthage"

Done.

• I think we better can remove "of Carthage" in the Xanthippus's article's title if sources don't say that.

Feel free to do so. I rarely mess with other articles'titles. I don't even mess with my own, even when they are wrong; as with Mercenary War or Battle of the Bagradas River.

• more than 100,000 men were lost.[61][63][71][61] Double 61 citation?

Grr. I copied instead of cutting when I put them in order. Fixed.

• was a battle of the First Punic War fought in 255 BC between Remove the extra space.

Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers CPA-5. You are letting me off lightly. Or else I am getting better :-) . Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, is there any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Gog, finally got back to this, sorry for delay. I've been back to my original comments and all changes since... Firstly I'll deal with the older comments

No worries Jenny. I only posted this one three days ago!

• grapple - I had asked about this because I searched "corvus grapple" and found many sources linking the two ie end of corvus was a spike/grappling hook... but also the corvus enabled grappling. No bother, pls ignore.

Done!

• ship handling skills - hyphen was added then lost?

D'oh! Re-added.

• This comment of mine "The Romans sent a fleet of 350 quinqueremes and - need to mention year 254 BC somewhere in this para to match map?" - since then you have amended the year 254 to 255 elsewhere... the map has "6: Romans retreat to Aspis and leave Africa. (254 BC)" but retreat was 255BC? Tweak caption date?

That is embarrassing. Corrected.

• per same comment ... in text "Later in 355 BC the Romans sent a fleet of 350 quinqueremes and more than 300 transports to evacuate their survivors" - 355 BC should be 255?

Groan. I think that I was confusing the year with the number of ships. Clearly I need putting out to grass. Done.

• author link for Scullard didn't happen?

That is very odd. Done.

• author link for Peter Jones (classicist) happened but didn't work - needs a "2" (ie second author)

It does? I guess that makes sense. Done.

• You've added to lede "... more generous than those proposed by Regulus." - add consul and pipe wlink Regulus here?

Actually, re-reading, the last bit of that sentence relates to nothing, and isn't that relevant. Shortened. What do you think?

• ref orders (yeah, yeah... humour me) 290,000 crew and marines[note 4][49][45][52]

For you, anything.

• more than 100,000 men were lost.[61][63][71][61] - 2 times 61

Already deleted with prejudice. I copied when I wanted to cut while ordering them.

• Category 254 BC - 255

Done.

That's it for now, JennyOz (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Jenny, you are a star. I don't know what I would do without you. All done and, this time, checked. Awaiting the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@JennyOz: I seem to have repeatedly messed my ping up. Fourth time lucky. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but there is no "next installment". I reckon I'm ready and happy to add my support. JennyOz (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

PS can you pls add a </small> to your chat with SN?

Support Comments by T8612

• "More broadly both sides wished to control Syracuse, the most powerful city-state on Sicily", can you replace this with what you wrote in Battle of the Bagradas?

Done.

• The figure of 350 ships, as given by Polybius, has been doubted by many historians. Your citation of Goldsworthy also mentions that figures are unreliable (p. 115). Scullard supports the long-established view that the number was inflated by 100 ships, possibly by Fabius Pictor, from whom Polybius got his numbers. So, there would have been 250 Roman ships present at Hermaeum; they captured 114 ships (total 364), and lost 284 of them in the storm (=80 surviving ships). Walbank says that Fabius' number comes from the inclusion of the transport ships. Refs are Walbank, Commentary on Polybius, vol. I, pp. 82-83. Scullard, CAH, vol. 7-2, pp. 554-557. Tipps also summarises Julius Beloch's argument that Fabius deliberately increased numbers in order to impress his Greek audience. Tipps himself supports Polybius' numbers.

  I would expect to see this discussions here, because the figures you have used only represent one side of the academic debate, for which there is apparently no consensus. I would even say that Tipps' article actually challenged the consensus (that the Roman navy had 100 less ships). This discussion would also expand the Battle section, which is currently only a small portion of the entire article.

  You would have to mention the alternative numbers in the infobox and the lede too.

Very good point(s). I'll do a quick survey of the secondary sources and get back you.

I'm not seeing that from Scullard in the Cambridge Ancient History; he just gives "some 210 vessels" with no explanation of where it comes from.

DeSantis, most unusually, gives a whole chapter to this battle. He simply gives 350, with some explanation as why it is a reasonable total.

Bagnall simply gives 350.

Goldsworthy is specifically doubting the "80 survivors from 364" and not the 350 Roman warships he gives earlier.

Lazenby gives the best summary of the sources I have found, and I have no great objection to briefly summarising this, but ends up more or less supporting Polybius.

Tipps, as you say, argues strongly for 350.

Bleckmann simply gives 350.

I have not cherry picked these, they are the sources I have to hand. Hence my understanding that the strong modern consensus was for 350.

Note that a simple 250 plus 114 = 334 doesn't work because, as Lazenby and Tipps discuss, it omits the 40 galleys left in Africa.

You are seem to be suggesting that the consensus among scholars is for 250, or 210 as Scullard (who I assume is allowing for the 40 galleys at Aspis, although he doesn't say). Any chance that you could give the sources who support this, other than Walbank? Thanks. Pending this I have added a note flagging up that their is a minority view. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Walbank also tells that the "bad seamanship" given by Polybius was a criticism elaborated later. He says that the Roman navy had no choice but to go on the (dangerous) eastern route around Sicily, since the Carthaginians still held Drepana and Lilybaeum and prevented them from passing there. (vol. I, p. 96). It would fit well after "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship".

I feel that modern sources speculation as to why a particular route was chosen is getting off topic. Is Walbank arguing with Polybius from beyond the grave really worth including. I give Polybius's opinion; the implied contradiction of the triumphs; and then quote Scullard more or less saying that Polybius is talking nonsense. That seems to me a reasonable summary.

T8612 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Working on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi again T8612 and thanks again for your insightful comments. I have responded above and look forward to your response(s). Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late answer, I was away. So I've read a bit more on this. Tipps' article summarises all the historiography on the matter since the 19th century. It apparently all started with Julius Beloch in 1886, then W. W. Tarn in 1907, De Sanctis in 1916, Johannes Hendrik Thiel in 1946 and 1954, Walbank in 1958, who also cites Tenney Frank from the 1st edition of the Cambridge Ancient History (with different numbers though), and finally Scullard in 1989. All the authors you listed apparently wrote after Tipps article in 1985. Scullard died in 1983, so he wrote his chapter for the CAH before Tipps too. Therefore, it seems that Tipps was convincing and shifted the consensus back to Polybius' numbers. I see you have added a note, but I would expand a bit in there, saying something along the line of "For most of the 20th century, many prominent historians [perhaps giving some names: such as Beloch, De Sanctis, or Walbank] doubted the numbers given by Polybius, but in 1985 G. K. Tipps published an influential article favouring Polybius' number of 350 ships. His conclusions have been generally followed since." I personally like when Wikipedia tells about historiographical shifts and I feel that the importance of Tipps' article ought to highlighted here. T8612 (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi again T8612, thanks for doing the research; that's pretty much how I see it too. I am also with you re including a bit of histography, but as I have a tendency to ramble on I perhaps overcompensate at times. However, now that you have "given me permission" I will get it in. (Reading the Tipps article inspired me to work on my first Punic Wars article - Battle of Ecnomus.)

My footnote has ended up as

Polybius gives the figure of 350 warships and this is accepted by most modern scholars. For most of the 20th century, prominent historians argued that this was based on an error or a miscalculation and gave figures of 210 or 250. In 1985 the classical historian G. K. Tipps published an influential article favouring Polybius' figure, and his conclusions have been generally followed since.

I couldn't see a way to get names into the "most of the 20th C" bit without making it clunky. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I wouldn't add the refs to Scullard and Walbank there as they are all listed in Tipps' article. I've tried this: The figure of 350 warships comes from Polybius. However, for most of the 20th century prominent historians—such as Karl Julius Beloch, Gaetano De Sanctis, and F. W. Walbank—argued for lower figures of 210 or 250, saying that Polybius' figure was based on an error, a miscalculation, or even Roman propaganda. In 1985 the classical historian G. K. Tipps published an influential article favouring Polybius' figure, and his conclusions have been generally followed since by modern scholars.[Tipps' ref]. Do as you like, I think it's good either way. T8612 (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@T8612: Yes, I like it. I have gone with a slightly tweaked version of your suggestion. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Me butting in again; normally in my experience, "classical historian" is used to mean a historian from the classical period, such as Polybius. Referring to Tipps as a "classical historian", meaning a modern historian who writes about the classical period is (to me at least) a little confusing. Harrias ^talk 21:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias: That's what you're supposed to do :-) . Point taken. Changed to plain "historian". Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi T8612: I wonder if you feel ready to either support or oppose yet, or if you have any further comments or queries. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'll make new comments tomorrow. T8612 (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• On the consuls' triumph, the exact dates are 13 (Fulvius) and 12 (Paullus) ante diem 1 February 254. John Briscoe (Commentary on Livy, books 41-45, p. 221). The Romans counted days backwards from the beginning of the next month. Since January had 29 days before the introduction of Julian Calendar, it means the dates are 16 and 17 January (Fulvius and Paullus respectively). Not sure it counts as original research because Briscoe only gives the Roman dates though.

Great. Thank you. I have ducked the OR issue by just referring to January, with which I feel we are safe enough.

• After the part on the consuls' triumph, or perhaps in the aftermath section, you can add that Paullus built on the Capitol Hill a column celebrating his victory (mentioned by Livy). John Briscoe (ibid., p. 221) says that Paullus wanted to imitate Gaius Duilius who built a column with public money after his triumph (Paullus used his own money though). He adorned it with captured Punic prows. Paullus' column was destroyed by lightning in 172 BC.

Added.

• You have the portion of the Fasti Triumphales that mentions their triumph here (I think this picture can be used in other articles on the First Punic War as all the triumphs there are dated 263-241; the first line mentions the triumph of Valerius Messalla, the last line tells about Lutatius' triumph). If you want I can do something like that to highlight their names on the stone.

I think that the main picture is too big for this article, where the triumphs are a bit peripheral. But if you could cut an extract down to four lines or so and highlight the two consuls' names that would be excellent.

T8612 (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks T8612, responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried to reduce the picture of triumphs to the two names here, but the quality of the image is not good and the names are a bit blurry as a result, so I won't add it. I still think that this picture could be used for the articles on the Punic Wars. Anyway, supporting now. T8612 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• Sources all look acceptable to me.
• It would be preferable to harmonize the use of Google Books links. Personally, I don't think they are helpful unless they link to a specific section or page where information can be verified.

All removed.

• Checked Tusa & Royal 2012. The only relevant content that I could find on page 14 sort of supported "secured with bronze spikes", but not any of the other content (which is in the other source.) It would be preferable to move the citations to make clear which content is supported by which source.

Done.

• Furthermore, the sources are only discussing one set of archaeological finds. Perhaps this should be attributed further as it's not clear to me that the sources are fully generalizing as you do here.

I have added "All of the rams recovered by modern archeologists" to the start of the sentence.

Comments

• The image captioned "Romans land and capture Aspis..." breaks the next section heading. So does "Territory controlled by Rome and Carthage".

True. Is there some issue with this?

• The article seems unbalanced since only 3 body paragraphs actually deal with the battle.

Very true. The primary material on the battle as such is very thin, despite it being Carthage's worst maritime defeat of the war and the storm which followed destroying more Roman ships than any other event of the war. So much so that despite this war being well picked over by Wikipedia editors that I was able to create the article from an incorrect redirect three months ago. What is in the "Battle and storm" section is pretty much all that has been milked from the primary sources by more recent scholars. I could "balance" the article by reducing the other sections, but this seems a bit "cart before horse". I have cut the "Invasion of Africa" section a little - and expanded the "Aftermath" - at Harrias's request since you read the article.

(t · c) buidhe 00:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, much appreciated. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48 (support if renamed)

• The article is well-written, and well-referenced. The prose is pleasant, easy to follow and in conformance with Wikipedia's styles. Historical backgrounds and necessary concepts are explained clearly.
• Small suggestion: In the passage "The immediate cause of the war was the issue of control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina)", it would be useful to mention who controlled it before the war.

Oof. It was an independent city state. It was "in the news" because several years earlier a gang of unemployed mercenaries had killed all of the town's men and taken the place over, including their families[!] I have changed it to "control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina)"; I think that the rest would be getting off topic. What do you think? (I could put a bit more detail in a footnote?)

I think mentioning it as an independent city state is already good. The original wording made me wonder if it's one of them trying to grab the other's territory, but if the city is independent that's enough to clarify the sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• My main concern is the lack of details about the course of the battle. For example, it would be nice to know how the fleets were organized, how they engaged each others, if any tactics or maneuvers were used (other than the Carthaginians vaguely sailing close to the coast), or what was the reason for the lopsided result. Any notable small-scale event/engagement during the battle could add more colour to the article. The article has great details on the background, prelude and aftermath, but that cannot make up for the sparsity of the details on the battle itself (I think only the first paragraph of the battle section is directly about the actual battle). Probably this is due to limited RSes, but in my opinion there should be a minimum standard on comprehensiveness before we can call an article Wikipedia's "very best work".

Buidhe had much the same issue, and it is probably best for you to read what I responded to them. Despite it being Carthage's worst naval defeat ever, and the storm Rome's worst disaster of the war, very little primary material has survived. Which means that the secondary sources all mention it, but all have little to say about it, and that mostly repeats the same bare facts. It is highly notable, so it seemed to me that it deserved an article; and I believe that I have included all of the material in the RS secondary sources, so it seemed reasonable to nominate it for FAC. Brevity comes up occasionally at FAC-talk, but it is not, so far as I am aware one of the FAC criteria. They require other things, such as "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." I think that part of the problem may be around the title: what I would like to call the article is something like The Romans' fighting withdrawal from Africa, and the misfortune which befell them during it. That is the topic of the article, but as a title, that wouldn't be allowed. Suggestions for a better title would be welcomed. You say that "there should be a minimum standard on comprehensiveness"; could you explain in a little more detail please, because the article seems wikt:comprehensive to me.

My interpretation is that by being comprehensive it has to encompass a broad enough aspects of the battle. To make it less subjective, I imagine a reasonable person asking me, "how did the battle of Cape Hermaeum go?", which is one of the main aspects to ask about this battle, I expect the material from this article should be enough for them to think that my explanation is comprehensive. If I just explain so-and-so sailed closed to the coast, then got outmaneuvered, pinned, and lost 114 ships, I really doubt it would be considered comprehensive. This is my interpretation, but unfortunately the FAC is too brief to tell whether this is an appropriate one, and I understand if you object to it. I hope this makes my objection more specific, hehe. HaEr48 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

PS Actually, thinking on't, how would "Roman withdrawal from Africa, 255 BC" sound to you as a more appropriate title?

That's an interesting idea. I think in that case the breadth of the article would be more appropriate. The article can answer the question "how did the Roman withdrawal in Africa 225 BC go?" more comprehensively, and the background and the aftermath article still works as well (if not better). I don't know how this would go with the other reviewers though. HaEr48 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Thanks for making me think about the title, I normally pay it no attention at all. (I once had a FAC where the title was changed twice during the process. I just kept out of it, but I don't think that the coordinators were best pleased.) I don't see why the other reviewers should be too bothered, but I will ping them anyway. I just need to check with @FAC coordinators: that changing the article's title now won't mess up the process, or would they prefer it to happen after the FAC has concluded - one way or another? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I would have no objection to the title (and therefore scope) being changed, but feel that it should happen during the FAC: such a change in the title would necessitate a change in certainly the lead, and possibly a slight change in focus for the whole article. Harrias ^talk 12:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And PPS, if I were writing a history article I could write an extensive and detailed account of the battle - the crash of corvuses, the rush of boarding legionaries, Carthaginian ships crowded against the shore where they can't use there superior manoeuvrability, etc. And be 99% sure that it was accurate - but that is the job of the secondary sources and for some reason they haven't got to these events yet. As it is an encyclopedia article all I can do is put all of that stuff in the "context" and hope that I write engagingly enough for a reader to mentally fill the gaps. Any hoo, well off topic now.

That's my feedback for now. Don't get me wrong, despite my concern above, it is a well-written and informative article, and I enjoyed reading it. HaEr48 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi HaEr48 and no problem, this is Wikipedia - we are supposed to disagree! I have responded as best I can. If you are still concerned, perhaps you could narrow down what your concern is, and I will do my best address it, or, who knows, perhaps agree with you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Post retitling proposal

As commented in the other sections, I support the retitling proposal. Further comments regarding the structure of this article if it is retitled:

• Result secion in the infobox is no longer an unequivocal Roman victory because the fleet was lost in the storm. Suggest updating result and casualties to reflect that

I meant to do that, but somehow overlooked it. Thanks for the reminder. Done.

• "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship": probably we no longer need the "subsequent" here.

1) It is a quote: while I could truncate it, it would smack a little of twisting the words to fit how we are trying to present events. 2) 'each was awarded a triumph in January 254 for their victory at Cape Hermaeum ... "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship" ': this seems a perfectly natural construction to me. Looked at on its own it doesn't seem to be presupposing what the scope of the article it is a part of is; just noting that the storm happened after - subsequent to - the battle. So I am inclined to leave it. Not insisting, but it doesn't seem an issue to me.

• Suggest adding another top level section "Roman reversal and withdrawal" that covers the fourth paragraph of #Invasion of Africa downwards.

Done

Overall I am leaning conditional support assuming the remaming and suggestions (especially the first point above) are done, and I have sufficient trust that the nominator will carry it out properly. HaEr48 (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks HaEr48, your points addressed. And the renaming will be happening, whichever way this nomination goes. (Bar some sudden and not expected rush of consensus not to.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Support with the renaming. HaEr48 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change of title

Pinging previous commentators on this article @HaEr48, Harrias, CPA-5, Buidhe, JennyOz, and T8612:

• It was noted by Buihde that "The article seems unbalanced since only 3 body paragraphs actually deal with the battle" and subsequently by HaEr48 that "The article has great details on the background, prelude and aftermath, but that cannot make up for the sparsity of the details on the battle itself". Both I feel are good points. There is further discussion above.
• I feel that the title was ill chosen: I picked it up as a redirect and never really thought about it. I am minded to change the title to "Roman withdrawal from Africa, 255 BC". This, I think, better describes the scope of the article. I don't think that it does it full justice, but it is the best short and encyclopediac title I have come up with.
• If this change were made it would entail, as Harrias notes, a couple of obvious changes to the text in the lead and a couple of minor tweaks in the body of the article.
• I would welcome any thoughts you may have on this.
• @FAC coordinators: to check that changing the title isn't going to break FAC.

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would support this move. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• I would support too, as long as the necessary tweaks are made in the lead and probably in the body, as the nominator noted above. HaEr48 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Speaking as a coord, it's always simpler if these things happen after the FAC has been closed. I'm sure if the move is agreed to here then it'll happen soon after closure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Harrias earlier commented above "I would have no objection to the title (and therefore scope) being changed, but feel that it should happen during the FAC" Given that CPA-5 hasn't edited for two weeks, and that {{u|T8612 has only made 7 edits in the last 16 days (2 on this page, bless them) I am taking this as a consensus for the change of title.
• I have modified the lead, except for the short opening paragraph (see below) and made a couple of very minor tweaks to the main article.
• Given what Ian said above, I intend to wait until this nomination is closed, and then - whichever way it goes - I will change the title to "Roman withdrawal from Africa, 255 BC" and rewrite the opening paragraph of the lead as

  The Roman withdrawal from Africa was the attempt by the Roman Republic to rescue the survivors of their defeated expeditionary force to Carthaginian Africa in 255 BC during the First Punic War. A large fleet commanded by Servius Fulvius Paetinus Nobilior and Marcus Aemilius Paullus successfully evacuated the remnants of the expedition, defeating a Carthaginian fleet en route, but was struck by a storm while returning, losing most of its ships.

• Hopefully there is sufficient trust to accept that this will happen, despite us all no doubt agreeing with Harrias's sentiment that "[I] feel that it should happen during the FAC".
• Are there any comments, queries or objections regarding this? Pinging HaEr48, Buidhe and JennyOz.

Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer to keep the current title, because the new one is less explicit, and not really supported in the sources. Although the battle only makes a small part of the article, it is still the main event of the whole operation. If the problem is that the battle § is too short compared to the rest, then a solution would be to remove some text in "background", since this is a repetition from previous articles. That said, I would not oppose the new name if there is a consensus for it. T8612 (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi T8612. Thanks for sorting out the Africanus image - appreciated. Feel free to look over the rest of it.
• Re sources, I did a check when this first came up - not, admittedly, an exhaustive one - and couldn't find the phrase "Battle of Cape Hermaeum" anywhere in the RSs. I was surprised.
• I think that consensus has pretty much been reached; I am even inclined that way myself, although I can very much see both sides. I have written a couple of FAs of campaigns, and titles can be a bit debatable, and rereading the whole of this article, it is, to my eye, more an account of the campaign than of the battle.
• I was planning to leave it another day or so for any further comments by existing reviewers, and then start encouraging them to either support or oppose on the basis that it is going to be retitled.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK. All actionable comments have been responded to.
• Hopefully T8612's image of the Fasti Triumphales will be coming along at some stage, but I see that as a nice extra rather than a nomination breaker. At least I don't think that anyone has suggested that the article in its current state fails "It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."
• I have changed the opening paragraph of the lead, as discussed above, so everything is in its final shape apart from the actual change of title; which, in accordance with the coordinators' preference, I won't do until immediately after the article is either archived or promoted.
• So, I would be grateful if @CPA-5, T8612, Buidhe, and HaEr48: could – barring any further comments, queries or suggestions – indicate whether they oppose or support the nomination. And apologies to you all for not having got to grips with this issue prior to nomination and thank you for your patience and forbearance. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Added a declaration of support in my review section. HaEr48 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: @Ian Rose and Ealdgyth: Hellooooo ... (I am being "pro active" again.) Gog the Mild (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ian @FAC coordinators: in the light of the above, could I have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks.

And for information, CPA-5 hasn't edited Wikipedia since 16 July. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the first ping got lost, yeah go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.