Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Drepana/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 28 March 2020 [1].

Battle of Drepana

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated an article on a naval battle from the First Punic War - Battle of Cape Ecnomus - FunkMonk commented "hope it becomes a series!" And so, specially for them, this account of Carthage's only naval victory of the 23-year-long war. I feel that it is ready for the rigours of FAC, but realise that if anything can be found fault with, it probably will be. All commentary gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Be consistent about the Cicero date
Oops. Fixed.
  • Be consistent about using full name or initials for authors
Done.
  • Sources appear reliable + are (otherwise) correctly formatted
  • Source checks:
    • Checked Konrad. I had trouble verifying because in my version from Cambridge Core, note 30 appears on page 200. Could you quote exactly what text in the source supports the claim?
The note number is correct, the page number was wrong - apologies and now changed from 199. The text relied on is the second sentence from note 30 "Tarn (ibid.) surmised, plausibly enough, that Claudius knew already before the battle of Carthalo's reinforcements being on their way – indeed, that this intelligence had prompted him to launch the attack on Drepana before they could arrive there."
Thanks. I'm not sure that supports" several sources speculate", however.
Ah, I see your point. I can't recall, but I think that I misread the full stop in "Carthalo had just arrived at Drepana with 70 ships (Polyb. 1.53.2), and Adherbal's fleet may be estimated at anywhere between 100 and 130: see Tarn (n. 18), 54; Thiel (n. 3), 90; Lazenby (n. 3), 133. Tarn (ibid.) surmised, plausibly enough, that Claudius knew already before the battle of Carthalo's reinforcements being on their way – indeed, that this intelligence had prompted him to launch the attack on Drepana before they could arrive there." and took Thiel and Lazenby to also be supporting this. Whatever, thank you for picking me up on this. That means that we have Tarn, and Konrad saying "plausibly enough". So how about if I change it to "Two modern historians have speculated that Pulcher may have been aware of ..." and explicitly add Tarn as a source? (I have done this, as it makes sense to me, but it is easily undone or amended.)
I'm not sure it's fair to say that Konrad is speculating, he mentions Tarn's hypothesis in a footnote. I would just attribute to Tarn and cite both.
@Buidhe: I can't say that I am that bothered by it, but I would consider his interjection of "plausibly enough" to be agreement with it - as speculation. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe 14:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC) buidhe 13:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe and thanks once again for stepping in. Your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe: Good catch and apologies. See my response above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • What can I say, other than thanks! I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why the text under the infobox map is so small? Would be easier to read if it was the same size as the rest of the text.
It would, but IMO it would then look incongruous, being larger than the rest of the text in the infobox. It is the same size as the text in all other infobox text on Wikipedia. No, I don't know why infobox text is smaller, such things are above my pay grade.
  • "Battle of Aegates" Link at first mention instead of second?
Done.
  • "along with their capital" Maybe say "along with their capital, Carthage", for clarity, and since the name isn't mentioned in the article body earlier?
Good point. Done. (And in a couple of other articles, including a FA *red face*.)
  • Link more names and terms in image captions?
OK. (IMO most people overlink, so I may not have added enough for your taste.)
  • "trireme" is linked twice in successive sections.
Gah! Fixed. (This is what happens when I cut and paste.)
  • I wonder whether, as in Battle of Cape Ecnomus, the section Operations in Sicily should come before the section on ships? Now it takes quite a while before the reader gets an idea of what this battle was about, and I think the ships used would logically be secondary to that.
Logically, I think it works better as it is; but in practice I think you have the right of it. And as I am all for anything that gets the information into the reader more smoothly, done.
Ok, it seemed that the ships used would be relevant as the preparation for the battle itself, and that the lead up to the war would therefore chronologically come before which ships were used in the battle itself. Anyhow, I think it looks fine now, but now the corvus is only presented long after it is first mention, so the presentation of it might be moved to first mention? FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been why I swapped the sections around. I don't want to go off on a tangent of technical detail in the middle of a description of operations. IMO the technical aspects of the ships need separating from getting across the operational background. I have shuffled around a lot of sentences, and added a little extra detail, and I think that it now flows. See what you think. Jens Lallensack, this also goes to your first point.
Good solution, I think! FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk: One way to entice a reviewer - dedicate the article to them :-) . Your points above are all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you can be pretty sure I'd reviewed it anyhow! FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe right align the image under Prelude, since it now clashes with an above image?
Done.
  • "moved against the main Carthaginian base on Sicily of Lilybaeum" Had to read it a few times to get it, maybe "main Carthaginian base on Sicily, Lilybaeum" or "moved against Lilybaeum, the main Carthaginian base on Sicily", to avoid confusion?
Changed to "the Romans moved against Lilybaeum – which was the main Carthaginian base on Sicily." Better?
  • "Sources other that Polybius" Than?
Oops.
  • "Location Off Drepana (modern Trapani), Sicily" Link Depana in infobox?
Done
  • "It was Carthage's greatest naval victory of the war" Only stated in the intro.
What an idiot! Fixed and sourced.
@FunkMonk: Your additional points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FM. There is one more to go. The grand finale to 23 years of war. If you want a sneak preview, it is at ACR right now. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • Corvus should be linked and explained at first mention, not later in the text.
Fair point. Can we discuss it together with FunkMonk's similar comment above?
  • manoeuvrable . – one space too much.
Done.
  • carried a crew of 300: 280 – I took some time to understand this colon here, first thought it is some ratio. Not sure if it should be combined with the semicolon that follows later in the same sentence. Maybe put "280 oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers" in brackets or use "including".
You are quite right; it was difficult for me to see because I knew what it meant anyway. Changed to 'A quinquereme carried a crew of 300, of which 280 were oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers' Does that work?
  • although hexaremes (six oarsmen per bank), quadriremes (four oarsmen per bank) and triremes (three oarsmen per bank) are also occasionally mentioned – This sounds like if in a hexareme six oarsmen would sit next to each other on a bank together, at a single oar. The article Hellenistic-era warships describes it differently: Two on each level, summing up to six taking the three levels together. Is this known for certain for the Roman warships after all?
A bank would be three oars, one above the other, with five oarsmen; or six for hexaremes. The image is meant to help visualise this. There was a fair bit of discussion as to how best to communicate this at Battle of Cape Ecnomus. We ended up with "The generally accepted theory regarding the arrangement of oarsmen in quinqueremes is that for each file there were three banks of oarsmen, one above the other, with two oarsmen on each oar of the two uppermost levels and one on the lower, for a total of five oarsmen per file." I trimmed it as getting off topic, but that may have been a mistake. If I put it back in, would that address your comment?
I am still confused. Shouldn't it, in the present article, be "file" rather than "bank"? Above you say "The generally accepted theory regarding the arrangement of oarsmen in quinqueremes is that for each file there were three banks of oarsmen". In the article you say "triremes (three oarsmen per bank)". Isn't that contradicting? Should't it be "three oarsmen per file"? A definition of "bank" would really help here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Jens. I was being slow on the uptake. I see your point, and yes - "bank" is an ambiguous term. Technically the explanation I give is accurate, but I can see that it is not easy reading. How about

The generally accepted theory regarding the arrangement of oarsmen in quinqueremes is that there would be sets – or files – of three oars, one above the other, with two oarsmen on each of the two uppermost oars and one on the lower, for a total of five oarsmen per file. This would be repeated down the side of a galley for a total of 28 files on each side; 168 oars in total.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This would be perfectly clear, yes! Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Jens, thank you, for spotting this flaw, bringing it up, and insisting that I make it clear. I appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens, it is very good of you to look at this. Your usual insightful comments, thanks. Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Little to quibble about here. A few comments:

  • suggest introducing Drepana in the first sentence ie "near Drepana (modern Tripani)" and just go with Drepana in the second para
Strange how you miss these thiings when you are too close to them.
  • when mentioned, state that the Battle of the Aegates was the final battle of the First Punic War
Done.
  • perhaps added (modern Agrigento) to Akragas
Done.
  • then perhaps they were thirsty. ("Bibant, quoniam esse nollent.")→then perhaps they were thirsty ("Bibant, quoniam esse nollent.").
OK. Done.
  • chivvy is a bit colloquial (and highly Brit Eng-centric). encourage the stragglers? drive the stragglers?
I have no idea what I was thinking there. I have gone with "possibly so he could discourage straggling."
  • suggest "and he immediately ordered them to take on board the garrison as marines,"
Good idea. Done.
  • suggest "passing between the city and two small islands to reach the open sea"
Done.
  • suggest deleting "although it is impossible to reconstruct to what extent" as we already have estimates of the numbers of ships on each side
Done.
  • "the coasts of Roman Italy in 248 BC"
Oops. Done.
  • Battle of the Aegates is duplinked
Fixed.

That's all I could find. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker67, appreciated. Your points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]

Not too much from me, but here goes.

  • "Adherbal was able to lead his fleet out to sea before it was trapped " maybe rephrase to clarify meaning? My first reaction was 'They got trapped while on the open sea?!' but now I see it was to avoid being captured.
Good point. Changed to "Adherbal was able to lead his fleet out to sea before it was trapped in harbour". Does that work?
works for me
  • "Since 2010 a number of artefacts have been recovered from the nearby site of the Battle of the Aegates, the final battle of the war, fought eight years later. Their analysis and the recovery of further items are ongoing. " does the discovery and analysis have any bearing on the information in this article? If not, what's the point of including it?
Weell now. Yes and no. I take your more general point and I have deleted it.
  • "The modern historian Anne Curry asserts that " "The galley expert John Coates suggested " Why is the former written in present tense ('asserts'), whereas the other is in past ('suggested')?
Because I'm a crap writer? (I struggle with the convention of pretending that all writing is in the present tense.) Fixed.
  • "full deck " I'm not immediately familiar with what a 'full deck' (as opposed to a half or quarter deck?) is outside of the connotation with card playing. Is this a well known term? Is there something we could link to or explain?
Simples - it's what I write without. Another good point. Sadly, there is no link I can find; despite the vast number of nautical terms in such articles as glossary of nautical terms. Does "Vessels were built as cataphract, or "protected", ships – that is, fully decked over – so as to be better able to carry marines and catapults." convey the meaning better?
Works much better for me, thanks
  • "In 255 BC the Roman fleet was devastated by a storm while returning from Africa, with 384 ships sunk from a total of 464 and 100,000 men lost" is there no article or section about such a great loss of life? Perhaps even a red link we could add?
Would you believe that there is not? It is usually considered as a part of the aftermath of the Battle of Cape Hermaeum. (If you click on that you will see that there is no article on it and it redirects to something pretty unrelated.) Even if the article on the battle existed I would be loath to link without mentioning the battle itself in this article, which seems to be getting off topic. I may write something brief on the battle and the storm one day, but not today. In short, I am inclined to leave it unlinked to anything. (I have just moved it to my formal "to do" list.)
well then, that's fine. Seems like quite the gap in our coverage, but that's for another article... Maybe I'll poke around my local library (perhaps put my rusty Latin to work) and see if I can find anything this weekend.
  • "but were defeated losing most of their elephants" should this be "but were defeated, losing most of their elephants"?
Done.

Not much, and pretty much all arguable or subjective, but great work as always on your part.Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie. No. All were to the point - hence my immediately going with most of them. Wikipedia relies on editors diligently insisting that other editors write sense. I think that I am passable at checking other's work, but know that I am rubbish at checking mine. I rely on the community for that, so thank you for helping prevent me present a faulty piece of work.
Your points all addressed, a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

G'day Gog, just a few...

  • between a Carthagian fleet under - is there a word "Carthagian" or should this be Carthaginian?
There isn't, it should.
  • and Cape Hermaeum (255 BC). [44] - remove space before ref
Done.
  • The immediate cause of the war was control - "cause" doesn't seem best word here, maybe motivation, purpose, aim, objective or similar? or
  • The immediate cause of the war was control - maybe swap "of" to 'for', or add 'for' before "control"
I am not sure I see the issue, but have changed to "The immediate cause of the war was the issue of control of the Sicilian town of Messana" Does that help?
  • Bibant, quoniam esse nollent - match quote marks, one is outside template, the other inside. (poor chickens "gone to sleep with the fishes"}
Sorted. And I removed a superfluous full stop. (Yes. To this day they occasionally catch feathered fish off the west coast of Sicily.)
  • Is Carthalo the linked army officer definitely same as Carthalo the redlinked admiral you had til 23 Feb?
How embarrassing. No, he is a red linked admiral. Fixed.
  • Adherbal brought his command up to 100 and sent him to raid - swap the "his" or "him" to Carthalo?
Done.
  • Can you pls check the 3 links: [[Carthage (state)|Carthagian]], [[Carthage]] and [[Ancient Carthage|Carthage]] are all intentional?
    • What I should have said was that Carthage (state) redirects to Carthage. Is that intentional or o'link?

That's all, no ref orders:) JennyOz (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could move some around for you if you would like? Ha ha.
G'day Jenny and thanks for your usual thorough service. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minor clarification above but not a bother so I am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenny. Yeah, I kinda knew that was a bum link, but somehow it snuck through. Thanks for picking it up. Both instances fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to coordinators

[edit]

Good morning Ian. Given the above, I wonder if is permissible for me to let the next one out of the trap? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, pls do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from T8612

[edit]
  • "More broadly both sides wished to control Syracuse, the most powerful city-state on Sicily". Goldworthy doesn't say that in these two pages (74-75). He says the Romans took advantage of the situation with the Mamertines' call for help, then they faced Carthage and Syracuse and fought for the domination of the Island.
Weell, he says "Syracuse was the main target... " etc, but let's not get hung up on it, it's not that important. How would you feel about 'More broadly the Carthaginians wished to expand their influence on Sicily[Goldsmith p. 68] while the Romans foresaw loot and military glory.[Miles p. 172]'?
The immediate cause of the war was indeed the personal ambition of Appius Claudius Caudex, but the war was also the clash of the two main powers of the area. For the ref, "A series of episodes created some mutual suspicions and the two sides drifted into war. When the minor states between them had been eliminated or assimilated the two great powers of the western Mediterranean suddenly found themselves face to face across the Straits of Messena." HH Scullard, Cambridge Ancient History, vol. VII-2, pp. 544-545. T8612 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too side tracked into something which happened 15 years before the battle, and I am not keen on "drift into war" which, it seems to me, is just not what happened. How about 'Rome's expansion into southern Italy probably made it inevitable that it would eventually clash with Carthage over Sicily on some pretext.'? Which I can source to Miles, p. 166-7.
Yes, it's much better. Your previous suggestion was a bit unfavourable to the Romans ("loot and military glory"). You should also amend your other articles that use the same sentence. T8612 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode of the sacred chicken has been doubted by T. P. Wiseman (in Clio's Cosmetics) and I suppose other historians. Wiseman says that this story was invented by an annalist hostile to the Claudii, whose inventions were then reproduced by his successors, like Livy. Polybius doesn't mention the story. It should definitely be added to the article.
Miles and Goldsworthy simply report it as fact, and Lazenby seems inclined that way. I am also aware of Wiseman's reputation: as Mary Beard politely puts it "a capacity for bold historical speculation that takes him right to the edge of (and in some cases beyond) what the surviving evidence can reliably tell us". However, I have noted the doubters, and cited this to Lazenby. "Polybius does not mention this, which has caused some modern historians to doubt its veracity."
In that case, it's not Wiseman's imagination. Others have doubted it as well; F. W. Walbank says "the anecdote may be genuine, but is more probably a later invention, to explain the Roman defeat." (Commentary on Polybius, vol. I, p. 113). I suggest including a reference to Walbank, who is the authority on Polybius. T8612 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like an additional citation - I don't see why, but I am fine with it - it may be easiest for you to insert it yourself. I cannot find Walbank doubting the account: eg the Cambridge Ancient History, p. 562, retells the account as fact. (Although that is by Scullard.)
Alright, I've done that. T8612 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to Cicero in the bibliography is strange because it uses a book from 1917, which makes the reader believe that Cicero was a modern author. The formatting found in academic sources is: Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II. 7 (not page numbers). I would therefore separate the entry for Cicero and place it in an "ancient sources" subsection of the bibliography (then you can link it to Perseus website). An entry for Polybius would also be required here. I've done something like this here.
Resolved by removing the Cicero cite, and the Latin it supports. I am not fond of primary sourcing and on reflection including the original Latin more shows off my erudition than informs a reader. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. Thanks for forcing me to think about it.
  • You can also mention that Roman casualties can be seen in the census of 247 BC, which shows that there were 56,000 less Roman citizens than in the previous census of 252. See sources here. T8612 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mention that in other articles but am not convinced that it is relevant here. Where would you suggest putting it? (And why?)
I would say something like "Roman casualties were not exaggerated, the census of 247 BC show etc.", but it's not essential. T8612 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined not to, as I don't see a reason to suggest to a reader that they might be exaggerated. And at 20,000 they seem plausible to me.
Hi T8612 and thanks for bringing your expertise on the period to bear. Your comments above all addressed, some with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again T8612, responses to your responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: Done. Anything else? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Drepana/archive1&oldid=947875294"