Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Aegates/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 25 April 2020 [1].

Battle of the Aegates

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third and final installment of my trio of naval battles from the First Punic War. It was the battle which decided the war (*spoiler alert*) - the Romans won. Interestingly (I think its interesting) archeological remains have been found on the seabed just where the primary sources said they would be. And recovered and examined. I am indebted to JennyOz, CPA-5 and Buidhe for their sterling efforts in removing so many of my foibles, faults and flaws. It is now, I hope, ready for your examination. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
Source checks
  • Curry—no issues with the content. However, the article is written by "Andrew Curry".
Gah! I'm going senile. I even thought it odd that she was writing outside her usual period as I keyed it in. Fixed.
  • Tipps—
    • #4 Quote from source: "Most extant treatments of the battle by ancient authors are disappointingly brief, but an extensive and meticulously detailed account - the most elaborate, indeed, of any naval action of the war - survives intact in the first book of Polybius, our best authority for the First Punic War as a whole." Compare to article: "he is best known for The Histories, written sometime after 167 BC, or about a century after the Battle of the Aegates". I don't see how this supports the article content, although perhaps the other source does.
Thanks Buidhe. It was meant to support "The main source for almost every aspect of the First Punic War is the historian Polybius", but I later inserted cite 2 and didn't reshuffle, which I now have done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise no issues
  • Dart and Vervaet—no issues

buidhe 23:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note—this article is currently undergoing an A-class review. AFAIK, that's allowed though. buidhe 23:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, actually -- I realise ACR isn't explicitly listed with PR and GAN in the FAC instructions, but we've traditionally treated simultaneous ACRs the same way, so one will need to close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. I had a vague recollection of that; but querying MilHist it was suggested otherwise. ACR now closed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suport from Harry

edit

Was gonna comment at the ACR but you're here now so what the hell. All in all, looking excellent. Just a few minor quibbles.

  • The link on artefact feels like overlinking.
Unlinked.
  • Ditto "ramming".
Unlinked.
  • The link to Roman navy on "fleet" is an Easter egg.
Unlinked.
I don't see this one. If one clicks on "board enemy ships", why should one be surprised to see an article on naval boarding?
I wouldn't normally expect to see a phrase like that linked, and I guess I expected the link to take me somewhere less "ordinary".
I'm not sure that's an actionable comment, or if it was meant to be. I am familiar with the concept of naval boarding and its variants down the millennia, but I wouldn't expect an "average reader" to be, so would prefer to leave it in. (If it went to somewhere less "ordinary", wouldn't that make it an Easter egg?)
I would have thought the average reader would probably understand the concept of naval boarding (though I must admit I wasn't aware the Romans used it) in the sense of people from one ship moving onto another ship. But it's certainly not something I'd withhold support over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. Are we talking at cross purposes here?
Sorry. Should have listed that under "overlinking". I would expect the average reader to know what crucifixion was.
Indeed. Unlinked.
  • And "traditional tactic".
Unlinked.
Unlinked.
  • And "following" (also the link is about sea state, not wind direction).
I don't see why linking "following wind" to following sea creates an Easter egg. Any chance that you could explain that one in simple words for me Harry?
The first sentence of the main article (ie, not the lead) of following sea reads "Sailors use this term synonymously with the points of sail below a beam reach, since the wind direction is generally the same as the sea direction"
I'm not sure the link is necessary, but I won't push it if you want to keep it.
  • Rome had recently unified mainland Italy south of the River Arno under its control is a little confusing. You could just insert a "the" before "recently unified", which would make it clearer that the recently unified mainland Italy south of the River Arno is a noun phrase, but I think we could also stand to lose the detail and go with "most of mainland Italy" or similar.
I prefer to keep the detail. How about 'Mainland Italy south of the River Arno had recently been unified under Roman control'?
That works well.
Done.
  • in the actual battle is probably redundant and I dislike this use of "actual" in formal prose.
I dislike it too, and it's a bit embarrassing that it slipped through. Thanks. Fixed.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry and many thanks for your time and effort. Your points above all addressed, some with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few replies above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Harry. Your further thoughts addressed, one via a comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just FYI, your first set of changes (the ones we agreed on) haven't been made. Did you forget to save the page? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Harry. One of the Wiki-beta-gadgets hiccups on me about once a week. Most annoying. I usually check for things like reviews, but obviously I forgot. Or I really am going senile. Anyway, now done, and checked. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
The plan is to end the mini-series abruptly and unsatisfactorily; follow up with a sequel; then recap with a director's cut; which will spawn a multitude of spinoff articles of variable quality. "Always leave 'em wanting more."
  • Roman legion appears to be duplinked.
Not sure how that got through the duplink highlighter. Thanks. Fixed.
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As before, I wonder whether the Operations in Sicily section should go before the ships?
Done.
  • "had declined by 17 per cent since the start of the war" Seems very specific considering the time, how is this known?
The Romans held an annual five-yearly census, which determined tax bands, eligibility to vote and liability for military service, so it was taken seriously. Lots of them are quoted in the ancient sources. The source I cite reads "The census of citizens had fallen by some 17% of the total, not couting their allies." (Most sources reckon that the allies had suffered worse.) Or Goldsworthy, p. 122 "Roman citizens registered by the censurs as 292,234 in 265-264 ... only 241,712 in 247-246." Honest, it is as nailed down as anything more than 200 years ago can be.
  • Link quinqueremes in infobox, and trireme in image caption?
Done.
  • "Sources other that Polybius" Same as last time, than?
D'oh! I can hardly believe that I did that! I even reintroduced it into Battle of Drepana!! Now fixed in multiple articles, and thank you.
  • "and did not feel that they had sufficient time" Seems very specific that we know how they felt, what is this based on?
The source cited. The Carthaginians were unsure when their Sicilian garrisons would run out of food and/or motivation and surrender, Hence the time pressure. I have changed to 'and did not have sufficient time'. I agree that that it is probably unencyclopedic to over-impute motivations, even with sources. And dug up a more specific source to really nail it down.
Hi there FunkMonk. Thanks for stopping by again, and apologies that the first thing you had to do was to repeat half of your grumbles from last time. Your comments to date addressed above.
And, inspired by your fondness for them, I have brought forward the release schedule: First Punic War is at ACR; Battle of the Lipari Islands is at GAN (the very last of the naval battles); Battle of Adys and Battle of Tunis should be GANing soon - the first possibly tomorrow. So there should be plenty of First Punic War things for you coming along. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll hopefully be back in the GAN game soon, the Coronavirus semi-lockdown around here hasn't exactly given me more spare time, as I can work from home... Rest of the review below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you have a GAN up, and I'll see if I fancy it.
  • I wonder there that photo of the naval ram as taken.
No metadata, so one can't tell. I understand that some of the rams have been on tour, so it could have been anywhere. Is it important?
  • Since the battle section is a bit crammed with images now, and the archaeology sections mentions recovered rams, why not ove the photo down there for balance in the layout?
Good idea. Thanks. Done.
  • "However, they believe that the many amphora identified confirms" Confirm, since it's plural? Or maybe I'm missing something, as I'm of course not a native speaker.
But you are managing better than this native speaker. Good spot. Fixed.
  • You don't give the full names of the Roman commanders anywhere in the article body.
Oops. How embarrassing. Fixed.
@FunkMonk: Very insightful. Thank you. All done.

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

I won't do a review for now mate. I didn't really support the ARC but most of my comments were addressed though I think there were some points I wanted to talk about or it was about the First Punic War one or another. Anyway I won't do this one, 'cause just heard the news, we'll get a lockdown tomorrow noon and everything's changing rapidly. Even schools are closed since Monday and normally I had a deadline in mid-April at our project (which is after the break and Easter) but they changed it to 25 March which is month lost thanks a lot corona. I won't be that much online until I don't know 26th? Who knows I'd still be online and minor edit here and there but I don't really have time to reply to them. It's really sad because now I barely can visit my dad for like a month or even longer 'cause he has asthma and could be dangerous for his health. :/ Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • between the fleets of Carthage and Rome during the First Punic War Wrong link of Carthage here; it should be the Carthaginian Empire's article. Same in the infobox.
I have changed the redirect.
  • Almost bankrupt, the Romans borrowed money to build a naval fleet I couldn't find anyone in the body who borrowed them some money? I even cannot find the word "borrowed" in the body either.
"With the state's coffers exhausted, the Senate approached Rome's wealthiest citizens for loans to finance the construction of one ship each, repayable from the reparations to be imposed on Carthage once the war was won, and to donate slaves as oarsmen. The result was a fleet of approximately 200 quinqueremes, built, equipped, and crewed without government expense." from "New Roman fleet" section.
  • on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin here.
Done.
  • Link Arno and Sicily in the body.
Done.
  • because of the Romans' invention of the corvus I don't know if you know it but I don't think the Romans invented a bird. ;)
:-) Sloppy editing by me. Fixed.
  • and displacing around 100 long tons (110 short tons; 100 tonnes) Link tonnes and why is long ton here the primary while the rest of the article uses metric units as primary?
I blame the sources. Flipped and linked.
  • that they could maintain 7 knots (8 mph; 13 km/h) for extended periods Do we know how long extended periods here are?
No. But I found something in another source, and at the risk of becoming unfocused have added it.
  • The Carthaginians finally gained command of the sea in 249 BC Maybe add "again" here.
Done.
  • North Africa at the expense of the Libyans I think this is an easter egg?
In what way?
  • In this way "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." from MOS:EGG. I don't think an average reader would know there were Berbers in Libya and the article doesn't clarify Berbers in Libya.
I am more confused. No Berbers are mentioned in the article.
I have stripped out the Libyans, and just left the Numidians - most of the Libyans who lived around Carthage were Numidians. Does that work for you?
  • That works for me. Cheers.
  • led by a commander named Hanno. This is possibly the general Easter egg here and was Hano here Hano the Great?
In what way do you think it is an Easter egg? No, it is the Hanno linked to.
  • Like before, this sentence doesn't clarify which Hanno it is; I think a toponymic is needed and link Hanno instead of "the general" that'd make a little bit clearer.
Link repositioned. Only one Hanno is mentioned in the article, so there is no need to disambiguate him.
  • In the section "264–250 BC" it mentions Hanno the Great so maybe that's why it could create confusion?
Ah. I missed him. T'other Hanno now introduced properly.
  • numbers to take them the 45 kilometres (28 mi) to Lilybaeum --> "numbers to take them the 45 km (28 mi) to Lilybaeum"
Done.
  • They would then unload their cargos, mostly grain --> "They would then unload their cargoes, mostly grain" by Ngram.
Cargos is entirely correct usage. I note that the Ngram shows it becoming more popular and "cargoes" less so. Nevertheless, changed.
  • I've found out that Ngram also says "cargoes" is in general popular than its counterpart.
  • anchored off the island of Aegusa, 16 kilometres (10 mi) from Sicily --> "anchored off the island of Aegusa, 16 km (10 mi) from Sicily"
Done.
  • each anchor weighed 270 kilograms (600 lb) --> "each anchor weighed 270 kg (600 lb)"
Done.
  • 50 Carthaginian ships were sunk, 20 of them with all hands This is a start of a sentence.
Tweaked.
  • request for a 2,000 talent loan --> "request for a 2,000-talent loan" It is a compound adjective.
Done.
  • archaeologists in the sea within a 1 km2 (0.4 sq mi) --> "archaeologists in the sea within a 1 square kilometre (0.4 sq mi)"
Done.
  • In both the 4th and 5th notes should have an abbreviation.
Done.
  • he is known today for The Histories What is The Histories?
Click on the link and find out :-).
  • vessel as a model produced high quality quinqueremes --> "vessel as a model produced high-quality quinqueremes"
Done

All right this is done, I hope I got everything here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: many thanks as usual for your usual thorough job. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5, and ditto. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Hanno sorted; image - give me a clue. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support!Review from CaptainEek

edit

Always love a good naval battle! Do note that I'm counting this for the WP:WikiCup. An excellent article, just a few nitpicks from me:

  • Try to get the short description under 50 characters, ~40 is the recommended
Done.
  • I think that "decisive" should be added as a qualifier at some point in the lead, perhaps the first sentence as "was a decisive naval battle" or perhaps in the third sentence as "was the decisive final battle".
I have gone with "It was the final and deciding battle of the 23-year-long First Punic War.."
  • This might be my lack of understanding Latin grammar, but should the "quinqueremess" in the infobox really have two "s" adjacent?
It's a typo. Thank you. Fixed.
  • The third sentence of the lead seems to repeat the first, "between the fleets of Carthage and Rome during the First Punic War", "First Punic War between Rome and Carthage" are saying the same thing two ways. I suggest trying to rework that somehow, perhaps just remove "between Rome and Carthage" from one of the sentences.
Good point. Now that, at your suggestion, "deciding" has been added to the third "between Rome and Carthage" can be deleted from it without it looking painfully short.
  • "the large majority of the Roman fleet was destroyed in a storm, with an estimated loss of 100,000 men" Do we have an article about that? Is it covered somewhere? If so please link it. If not, create a suitable red-link, as that would be very interesting to read more about.
There is no article. It is usually, in the sources, considered part of the aftermath of the Battle of Cape Hermaeua; on which there isn't an article either, but which is red linked. I will write the article on it one day, but not today. I will red link to just the strom if you wish, but I am sceptical that an article on it will ever be written, and more so that it will say anything that won't be in the proposed Battle of Cape Hermaeua article.
A red link to the battle of Cape Hermaeua works for me
Ahoy CaptainEek, in a moment of lockdown boredom I have written Battle of Cape Hermaeum. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Nicely done! I've rated it and did a bit of cleanup. Very interesting material. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carthage probably viewed Sicily as a secondary theatre" according to Bagnall?
I'm not sure what the query is here. But, yes, according to Bagnall; see here. Also in other sources, see, eg, pp. 143-4 of Lazenby, here.
  • "17 per cent" As an American English speaker this looks very odd to me, is that a British English thing?
I think that it must be. Which part of it looks odd?
Heh, in American English its written as one word, "percent"
  • "The garrisons of Lilybaeum and Drepana, and Hamilcar's army at Eryx, held fast, but without supplies from Carthage they could not hold out indefinitely" suggest be changed to "The garrisons of Lilybaeum and Drepana – and Hamilcar's army at Eryx – held fast, but without supplies from Carthage they could not hold out indefinitely". I think that using an endash to add an interjection, instead of commas, works better. Once you have three commas set up like so it gets a bit awkward to read.
Fair point. Done.
It would indeed. And thank you for doing the work for me. Cut and pasted in.
  • Looked through all the images, good captions, good alt descriptions. I lament that the first image in the battle section is poor quality, but unless you feel a strong desire to remake it at a proper resolution, I have no complaint.
It came with the article when I picked it up. I know nothing about creating maps, although others have generously created them for me on occasion. (IMO the one in Battle of Cape Ecnomus is a stunner.) I considered this one just about this side of acceptable, and so decided o=not to 'use up' any good will by requesting a replacement; which couls take some time, or may never get picked up.

All in all, a very nice article, very well done! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CaptainEek, glad you like it. And many thanks for stopping by and going through this one. You make some good points above, and they are all now responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Good fixes, happy to support! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cap'n, I appreciate that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the co-ordinators

edit

Hi Ian, given the state of play above, can I ask permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can ask permission. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and permission granted, suh! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And don't give up the day job. ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JennyOz

edit

I had a look over this last month and now have only one quick quibble...

  • to lose another 150 ships to another storm - possibly consider reword to avoid 2 x "another". Eg, a further 150 ships? or, a subsequent/later/following storm? Only a trivial point so am happy to support promotion. JennyOz (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jenny. I am constantly amazed at my inability to proof read my own work. Nice job in spotting this. Now fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm back. Sorry. I noticed a couple of things in your most recent changes and just have to ask.

  • Hanno's - I see you have just adjusted that apostrophe in Hanno's. I was going to suggest some other treatments:
    • he is distinguished from other Hannos of the period by being known as the son of Hannibal
Oh. Very clever. Done.
    • he is distinguished from any other Carthaginian Hanno by being known as the son of Hannibal
Not sure about this. I don't think that there are any non-Carthaginian Hannos, so I don't see what adding this adds. Although I have deleted "the".
    • The Carthaginian fleet was led by a commander named Hanno (the son of Hannibal). Oh well, as long as the apostrophe has gone, all good.
Sorry Jenny, not getting your point here.
  • Did you mean to do this? "Hanno the Great was put in charge of operations in Africa in 248 BC and went on to conquer considerable territory by 248 BC." ie 241?
D'oh! Indeed not. Fixed.
  • redlink [[Battle of Cape Hermaea|Cape Hermaeum]] (255 BC) - confused here, the bottom Punic wars template has this blue (as a redirect to Adys). Is the different spelling in the pipe which is giving a redlink intentional? Can it not lose the pipe and also go to Adys until its own article is written? And yet I see the side template has no Hermaeum but has the red Hermaea. Told you I was confused. No need to explain, I was just sure I'd seen it blue somewhere since the ACR.
I get confused too. The Battle of Cape Hermaea has nothing to do with the Battle of Adys. (I have recently had the latter promoted to GA.) Or very little. I don't know why it was linked in the box. I have gone with the spelling in the sources I have so I can red link it and not have it redirected to an inappropriate article. I may well have mistakenly linked it myself, before I realised where it was pointing to. I really need to write the stub to stop these issues. Or just be bold and tidy up the box.
Hi Jenny, in a moment of lockdown boredom I have written Battle of Cape Hermaeum; and tidied up the templates. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bonza Gog! Looking good! (small because I'm barely game to ask... so the Battle of Cape Hermaeum (254 BC) is a different scuffle to the Battle of Cape Hermaea, (per my pipe spelling question above), and still showing red and fought in 255 BC in this Aegates article? JennyOz (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz No, no - always ask. I had gone through all of the relevant FPW articles standardising on the RS's preferred spelling and sorting out the templates, but somehow managed to miss this one! Which is typical of me. Many thanks for picking it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, my support still stands of course. JennyOz (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, I am pleased that someone is paying attention. If you have any more like those, please flag them up. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from HaEr48 (support)

edit

Nicely written, well-referenced and enjoyable to read. Just some small comments from me:

  • "It was intercepted by the Roman fleet and in a hard-fought battle the better-trained Romans defeated the undermanned and ill-trained Carthaginian fleet." (in the lead) Suggest adding the fact that the Carthaginian fleet was laden with supplies and hadn't had a chance to be reinforced with marines. Seems to me they were crucial because they limited the fleet's fighting power and maneuverability.
Good point. Done.
  • Largely because of the Romans' use of the corvus: Link or briefly gloss what corvus is because this is the first time it is mentioned and a full explanation will only come much later
Good spot. I have done both.
    • I wonder if the extensive explanation of the corvus (in the last paragraph of #Ships) is needed, given that it is not used in this battle. In exchange, I suggest for comprehensiveness adding a little bit on the tactics of a fleet (as opposed to an individual ship) - how did a commander try to win a battle? Is it mainly maneuvering your ships in order to ram and board the enemy? How were ships sunk? (given that many Carthaginian ships were sunk in this battle, but the mechanics aren't explained)
  • "During this period the standard warship was the quinquereme": add "in the Mediterranean" as qualifier, if appropriate?
Done.
  • "The Carthaginian fleet was led by a commander named Hanno": The following sentence suggests that his identity is actually unclear, so I wonder if the linking of Hanno is appropriate in this sentence. Maybe move the link to "This is probably the general who had lost .. "?

Done.

  • File:Aegades241a.png is really helpful and illustrative, but the texts are really small even if I open the image at full resolution in commons, any chance that they can be enlarged?
Nope. I would need to attempt to commission a new map, or remove this one entirely. I "inherited" it with the article, and I am not really happy with it. As say above to Captain Eek "I know nothing about creating maps, although others have generously created them for me on occasion. (IMO the one in Battle of Cape Ecnomus is a stunner.) I considered this one just about this side of acceptable, and so decided not to 'use up' any good will by requesting a replacement; which could take some time, or may never get picked up."
  • Is there any link (even a section in another article) for "the Carthaginian Senate"?
I could link to Ancient Carthage#Government if you think it useful, but the only mention there of the senate is the bracketed "(Roman sources speak of a Carthaginian "Senate", and Greek ones of a "council of Elders" or a gerousia)". It is not covered by the list in senate.
I see, it won't be that useful then. Fine to leave unlinked. HaEr48 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the archeologists/historians explain the fact that triremes, rather than quinqueremes were discovered?
They don't. That's the "their analysis and the recovery of further items are ongoing" bit. Bear in mind that they are hypothesizing from just the rams. They haven't actually recovered any ships, or even bits of. The best source to cover all of this in detail is the second work in "Further reading". It goes directly to your point, but sadly is a masters thesis, so I can't use it in the article. You can see here that I have a long standing request in for extracts from what seems to be the only copy[!] in the public domain of the book by the archeologists who recovered the artefacts. This may (or may not) shed more light.
  • I hope my comments are useful. Feel free to push back or discuss if they aren't. Note, I am planning to claim points for WikiCup 13:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi HaEr48 and many thanks for taking a look at this. Your comments are very useful, and insightful - thank you. All addressed bar the corvus/manoeuvring one. I agree with you there, in broad terms, but give me a little time to think how best to phrase it, and to make sure that I can source it. I'll re-ping you once I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Done. [2] See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I like it and I think it's more relevant too. Suggest finding another phrase for "spring its timbers" (not easy to understand for non-native speaker), but if not possible it's fine too because hopefully it can be inferred from context. 21:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. I've checked all of them and I have no more to add. Happy to support the nomination of this excellent article. HaEr48 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Thank you for your support, and even more for helping to improve the article. Re your previous comment, I have changed to the less exact but hopefully more readily understandable "to break loose its timbers". Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit
  • Use a {{lang}} template for the first (linked) usage of "corvus".
I wasn't aware that you could, as the template instructions don't mention it. It took a fit of trial and error to work it out. Done.
  • "The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, to lose a further 150 ships.." Even with the comma there, this sort of sounds like the intention of building more was to lose them! I would either change it to "..their fleet, only to lose.." or "..their fleet, but subsequently lost.."
Added "only".
  • "Average speeds of 5–6 knots were recorded.." Didn't fancy converting this one?
Done.
Done.
  • "These features allowed the hull to be strengthened, increased carrying capacity and improving conditions for the rowers." This seems to switch tense: "allowed", "increased", "improving"?
True. Consistentised.
  • "In 260 BC Romans set out.." Should this be "the Romans", or if we are talking about a specific group, "some Romans"?
"the" added.
  • "..and so slower and less manoeuvrable." Technically this is absolutely correct. However, with the modern usage of "so" as a modifier (thanks, Donald Trump), it could be confused for meaning "so much" slower. Could it be swapped for "therefore" or similar?
First time I've been told not to be technically correct! Gone with "thus"
  • "ubiquitous"? Us commoners needs a wikitionary link for this. Or at least a switch to something a little bit more prevalent, such as... prevalent?
Really! Wikitionaryed.
  • "..ones own galley.." Should this be "one's own galley".
It should.
  • "..manoeuvring of whole squadrons rather than ships." Would it be worth clarifying: "..manoeuvring of whole squadrons rather than individual ships."?
So clarified.
  • "The absence of Roman fleets probably led Carthage to gradually decommission her navy, reducing the financial strain of building, maintaining and repairing ships, and providing and provisioning their crews." and "Carthage probably viewed Sicily as a secondary theatre." Unless these can be shown to be widespread opinion, I would prefer inline attribution for the opinions.
There can, but it is easier to look up one and in line attribute, than five and list them here, so I have gone for the lazy option.
  • I'm a bit confused regarding the scale and length of the blockade. The end of the Blockade section says "They rebuilt again, and in 250 BC blockaded the main Carthaginian base on Sicily of Lilybaeum with 200 warships." But then the start of the New Roman fleet section says "In late 243 BC, realizing they would not capture Drepana and Lilybaeum unless they could extend their blockade to the sea.." Could you clarify this? Was this two different blockades? A really long blockade that wasn't effective until after 243?

I'm going to break off here, because this point is really confusing my understanding of the Prelude and New Roman fleet section. Nice work until this point, and it might just be my tiredness that is confusing me! Harrias talk 19:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Another reviewer wanted what you were seeing as the second paragraph of Background moving there, feeling that it was more sensible to have the information on ships nearer to the actual battle. But I can't make it work chronologically like that. I should probably have dug my feet in at the time rather than taking the easy and agreeable option. (It kinda made sense then - the first paragraph of what is n.) I have cut and pasted it back to how I wrote it, retweaked it slightly and - hopefully - it now flows more readily. If challenged, I shall point to your confusion. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now, the conclusion...
  • The image, captioned "The course of the battle" says that the Romans had 220 quinqueremes, but the article says 200. It also states that "The Punic Fleet arrived near the Holy Island with the intention of sailing to Eryx" while the article states "in secret off Hiera (Holy Island), the westernmost of the Aegates islands. There they would wait for a following wind, and rely on surprise and numbers to take them the 45 km (28 mi) to Lilybaeum". Unless the image text (which also contains a number of grammatical and spelling inconsistencies) can be made consistent with the article narrative, it needs to be removed, as it provides more confusion than clarification.
Removed. Swapped in a standard map of the islands.
  • "..the other Hanno's.." Should this be an apostrophe? I'm not sure it should?
Correct. Fixed
  • On the note of the text and image disagreeing; in New Roman fleet we are told that Hamilcar's army is at Eryx. This matches the image. However, in the Battle section, we are told that "..reach Sicily to relieve Hamilcar Barca and Lilybaeum." This isn't necessarily a contradiction, as the "and" allows them to be in different locations, but I did read it as one; when I first read it, I assumed Hamilcar Barca was at Lilybaeum.
Changed to "Lilybaeum, Drepana and Hamilcar's army". Does that help?
Yes, thank you. Harrias talk 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • "..the Romans had left their masts, sails and rigging ashore to save weight and so were unable to pursue." Phrased like this, it seems repetitive to me, as we have already been told this information. Perhaps something more like "..as the Romans had left their masts, sails and rigging ashore, they were unable to pursue."
Good point. Done.
  • "..contrary to Polybius's account of all of the warships involved being quinqueremes." Weren't we told earlier that Polybius essentially used "quinquereme" and "warship" as synonymous terms? So it wasn't necessarily "contrary" to his account?
Well it was. He explicitly said that all of the ships were quinqueremes. The fact that modern scholars may think he was generalising doesn't alleviate that. It is only contrary to how modern scholars are inclined to read his account. And even then, they always come back to "Polybius turns out to [be] fairly reliable" and "Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts". All of the sources I have on the battle predate this hypothesis, and it is interesting to see how they uncritically take Polybius's word that they were quinqueremes. The thesis, sadly only a masters, by one of the archaeologists involved under "Further reading" is interesting in this respect.
Fair. Harrias talk 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the |ref=harv from the Further reading section, and expand the "Warships of the First Punic War" link to show where it goes.
Umm. I can't find a ref=harv in the Further reading nor a "nowiki" template anywhere in the article. A little reluctantly I have taken The Histories out of the cite template. Does that resolve the issue?
Hmmm, strange. One of the scripts was flagging it up as an issue. The change you've made has sorted it, but I admit that I can't see why it was doing it originally. Harrias talk 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure what you want with the second part, as the link currently goes where I mean it to. I have tweaked. Does that address your concern?
Essentially, I was asking for it to be formatted as a citation would be; ie include the author details, date of publication etc. Harrias talk 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a really nice read (as usual). The image/text consistency issues might be tricky if you want to retain an image with the battle timeline, but otherwise mostly minor issues.

I was never really happy with the map, but it seemed just about serviceable. I should have looked at it in detail prior to nominating, but with images I tend to go straight to licencing and sourcing. Lesson learned. I hope.

I can't remember if I mentioned above, but I will claim WikiCup points for this review. I would also be very grateful if you would consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final/archive2.

Sure. Now on my to do list.

Harrias talk 14:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias. Well earned WikiCup points. Your points now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias Yeah, I got that on Polybius too. I assumed it was a bug and ignored it. Polakowski: tha should 'a' said lad. It is now fully cited. And has a big brown harv warning, which I am going to ignore. Thanks again, and good luck in the cup. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The infobox refers to quinqueremes sunk or damaged, but the text gives these numbers as ships generally and mentions the involvement of other ship types - is it certain that all sunk/damaged were quinqueremes? If so suggest clarifying that
No, it is not certain, to me. But only quinqueremes are noted as sunk or damaged in the sources. There is mention that transports sailed with the Carthaginian warships, but no mention of them in the battle. To OR, it seems highly likely that when the Roman fleet was sighted coming straight at the Carthaginians the transports prudently withdrew, probably ordered to do so. They would have been easy pickings for the galleys otherwise. Regardless, they are mentioned in the sources as being prepared, so I have also mentioned them. There is no mention of any casualties, if indeed they suffered any, or were even present at the battle, so I haven't mentioned them.
  • Similarly infobox states outright 10,000 men captured while text qualifies this as "up to". Also, is a death figure available for either side?
Apologies. Different sources. The consensus is 10,000. Text amended to match. Sourcing tweaked. No, no RS discusses even loosely possible death figures. The only work I have come across where there is speculation about this is Polakowski; but as this is a master's thesis I have not used him as a source and relegated him to Further reading.
  • FN70 is missing pages
I had used an upper case "P". Fixed.
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
Whoops. Too many Hoyos's. Fixed.
  • Bagnall: link goes to a different edition
Link removed.
  • Casson 1991: Worldcat states this is a second edition? If so that should be stated in the citation
It is. Done.
  • The Dart entry in Sources is incomplete
Page numbers and volume added.
  • "Elements of this building survive to the present-day" is cited to a 1911 source - a source that old can't verify that claim
Removed the mention. (Readers can see the photograph and draw their own conclusions.)
  • Lazenby: source link provides a different ISBN
ISBN from the work's title page now used.
  • Miles: Worldcat suggests the US editions have Viking as a publisher, while Penguin is the publisher for the British editions. Which edition is being cited here?
UK. Location changed to London.
  • Murray has a duplicate society name, but looking at the link this seems to be a conference paper so should be cited as such
  • Is there a reason to cite chapters from two different editions of Hoyos? Looking at the TOC from the 2015 edition it seems to include the chapter being cited from the 2011 edition
I suppose not. Standardised.
  • Tipps: "4th Qtr" is the date, issue is 4
Fixed.
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for periodicals
I assume that you consider The Site of the Battle of the Aegates Islands at the End of the First Punic War. Fieldwork, Analyses and Perspectives, 2005–2015 to be a periodical, and so have removed the location.
He doesn't, IMO. Which is why I haven't used him in the article, nor cited him, and why he is only in further reading.

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. Apologies that there was such a long list of sloppiness on this one. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from The ed17

edit
Hi The ed17 It's "a device which enabled them to grapple and board enemy vessels more easily" and is Wikilinked. As it doesn't feature in this battle, that seemed enough for a passing mention. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 24 April 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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_the_Aegates/archive1&oldid=968946334"