Talk:Battle of Cape Ecnomus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 15:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Taking this on, comments will come as I look through over the next few days. Constantine  ✍  15:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer: T8612 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Before reviewing in details, why didn't you mention ancient sources? Polybius is mentioned twice, but there is no reference to his works... All ancient authors dealing with the battle should be referenced, and the bibliography should list these authors and works.  Walbank's Commentary on Polybius must be cited as he analysed Polbius' account and discusses his sources (vol. I, pp. 82-89).  T8612  (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks for the input. At the moment I feel happy with the sourcing I have. (Obviously, virtually all of them overtly mention Polybius' account and in several cases discuss it and other scholars' opinions of it in more or less detail.) There is an external link to a translation of Polybius' account at the bottom. I know that the reviewer has strong opinions on sourcing, so I will wait for now to see what they say. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to clarify, are you also undertaking this review? Typically GANs are reviewed by a single user. Constantine  ✍  21:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd like to... Go ahead though, and perhaps I won't have anything to say. T8612  (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * "the consuls for the year", " legionaries" link Roman consul and Roman legion respectively
 * Done.
 * Done.


 * "the nascent states of Carthage and Rome" both were hardly nascent; as empires, perhaps, but not as states. It might be good to have a brief introduction, a couple of sentences, setting the stage for the First Punic War: that Carthage was a well-established maritime power in the Western Mediterranean, and that Rome had just completed the unification of Italy and was embarking on its first overseas expansion.
 * Done.


 * "The Carthaginians were not prepared to accept either of these.[4]" I don't know, this feels a bit redundant; of course the Carthaginians were opposed to this. I don't have my copy of Goldsworthy at hand right now, but perhaps it would be better (if the source supports this) to rephrase to the effect that the Carthaginians were equally committed to victory/opposed to a negotiated settlement and determined to fight to the end/etc.
 * Spot on. Of course it is. Done.


 * "as they were unable to effectively bring their superior force to bear on the Carthaginians." Superior force by land, not by sea; and why were the Romans not able to bring it to bear on the Carthaginians? A good place to note, if not done earlier, that Carthage lay in what is now Tunisia.
 * "Army" inserted. Location of Carthage added under Roman plans, where it seems to fit more naturally.


 * "Gk." is not readily apparent that it means "Greek"; IMO it is redundant here, as the Latin name means the same thing.
 * Removed.


 * "that the quinquereme had three oars...five oarsmen" hmmm, I know how the arrangement is supposed to look and I still had trouble understanding this. Perhaps "that the quinquereme had 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 had real trouble articulating that. Replaced with a tweaked version of your explanation, which is both clearer and shorter. Thanks.


 * "cataphract" is already English and needs no italics
 * Done. (Cataphract is an English word - if highly archaic - but not when used in this sense.) (More dictionaries that I consulted gave "corvus" as an English word, but I have left it in italics.)


 * "The Romans were essentially a land based power" This I think better fits in the intro section above, in tandem with an explanation that Carthage had a long maritime tradition; it explains why the Romans had the upper hand in Sicily, and sets the stage for explaining why moving the conflict to the sea was at first glance going to favour the Carthaginians.
 * Done.


 * "although "sixes", "fours" and "threes"" link the ships to hexareme and quadrireme, and use trireme for the threes for consistency.
 * Linked


 * " that the historian Polybius" given that Polybius is the major source for the conflict, I think he merits a brief introduction in the beginning, when you talk about the wider conflict. Something to the effect that "the events of the war are known chiefly from the writings of the Greek historian Polybius, who wrote them while resident at Rome after the end of the Punic Wars" or such. See also my comments below on sources.
 * "Roman ship building" ship-building
 * Done.


 * "for the Roman's" for the Romans'
 * Done.


 * "initial disadvantage in ship manoeuvring skills" perhaps better "initial inferiority in ship-handling skills"?
 * I toyed with that. But while it reads more readily, I don't think that it will be clear to a casual reader that better "ship-handling" translates into better ship manoeuvrability, so it seemed safer to be explicit, if a little clunky.


 * "unequally sized squadrons" unequally-sized squadrons
 * Done.


 * "with their left, landward, wing advanced" this seems to contradict the map of the two fleets displayed to the left
 * Yeah. It's not a brilliant map. The map shows both wings advanced. That's an error. The alternative is to ditch the map, which I am loath to do as it is otherwise fine, and I am not sure how comprehensible the manoeuvres are without a map.


 * "to avoid the effect" hmm, "effect" is not the right word here; perhaps "to hamper the Romans in using the corvus"?
 * I think it is, but I have tried a different wording. See what you think.


 * "many of their crew" crews
 * Done.


 * "So the superiority" better "Consequently..."
 * Yes. Good. Done.

Hmm. OK.
 * " described as "shapeless brawls"[35] where" comma after "brawls"
 * "where the Carthaginians", "so that the Carthaginians"
 * Done.


 * "the Roman's corvus" the Romans', and I think the plural corvi is more appropriate here; unless you use it as a collective noun, in which case "had to face the corvus" without further elaboration
 * Done.


 * "most hard pressed" hard-pressed
 * Done.


 * "responded to the consuls signals, broke of its pursuit" the consuls', broke off
 * D'oh! Done.


 * "The Carthaginian fleet fell back to home waters where" comma after "waters"
 * Done.


 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Given that any modern account largely relies on Polybius, I would strongly suggest also adding explicit references to his work. This can be done either in the text in parentheses, or as footnotes alongside the modern sources. Otherwise it may appear that the various sources cited are modern reconstructions by the different authors, whereas they usually sum up Polybius' account. I had a similar case in the Battle of Salamis (306 BC), where Diodorus Siculus is the main source.
 * Ah. I suspect that thee and I may have a difference of opinion. So long as they are not seriously challenged, then to me a modern RS both meets Wikipedia's requirements and stands alone as a source, regardless of where they garnered the information from - archeology, reconstruction, inscription, chronicler etc. I see no need to repeatedly state the basis on which they arrive at each of their conclusions - where they make this clear, which they often don't. I note in passing that a number of my ACRs and FACs have similarly been based on modern accounts which rest to a great extent on the contemporaneous chroniclers; you have seemed content with my similar treatment there. (I raise this not to point score, but as an observation.) I am relaxed about adding a section on sourcing more generally. I find this interesting and hopefully a reader will; if not they can always skip the section.
 * You have elegantly side-stepped this through the "Sources" section, so no worries on my part.
 * Given that any modern account largely relies on Polybius, I would strongly suggest also adding explicit references to his work. This can be done either in the text in parentheses, or as footnotes alongside the modern sources. Otherwise it may appear that the various sources cited are modern reconstructions by the different authors, whereas they usually sum up Polybius' account. I had a similar case in the Battle of Salamis (306 BC), where Diodorus Siculus is the main source.
 * Ah. I suspect that thee and I may have a difference of opinion. So long as they are not seriously challenged, then to me a modern RS both meets Wikipedia's requirements and stands alone as a source, regardless of where they garnered the information from - archeology, reconstruction, inscription, chronicler etc. I see no need to repeatedly state the basis on which they arrive at each of their conclusions - where they make this clear, which they often don't. I note in passing that a number of my ACRs and FACs have similarly been based on modern accounts which rest to a great extent on the contemporaneous chroniclers; you have seemed content with my similar treatment there. (I raise this not to point score, but as an observation.) I am relaxed about adding a section on sourcing more generally. I find this interesting and hopefully a reader will; if not they can always skip the section.
 * You have elegantly side-stepped this through the "Sources" section, so no worries on my part.


 * "has been estimated at 150,000" by whom? is that the common consensus? either way state so explicitly.
 * Done.


 * "The Roman fleet advanced" Here I would use the opportunity to reiterate that this is the description provided by Polybius, with the corresponding reference (book, chapter, lines).
 * Why? (And can we suspend Polybius issues until I have experimented a bit on how to incorporate him?)
 * Because the average reader does not know whether that is a report from a single ancient author (or eyewitness?), or a reconstructed report from multiple modern/ancient sources, and hence what the reliability of the account is. But again, with the "Sources" section that is cleared up now.


 * "It has been suggested" as before, by whom?
 * Done.


 * "the Romans were described" I assume by Polybius? State it explicitly. Ditto for "what has been described". One should distinguish the narrative of the primary sources from interpretations by modern scholars.
 * Qualifiers removed. I don't really understand why I put them in.
 * Minor niggle - I have never understood why ancient sources are universally referred to as primary, whether they were or not. One assumes that Polybius had already done the interpretation of his primary sources - he says that he has.
 * I agree, but convention is convention, especially in historiography ;)


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Some more context in the beginning is needed, but in terms of coverage it looks good. Some additional suggestions:
 * "improving the ship's maintainable speed" add the estimates of maintainable cruising speed, and perhaps also of maximum battle speed, it should give a good idea of the ability of Hellenistic fleets to conduct long-range operations, as well as the range of battle.
 * As below, so long as you don't feel that it is getting off topic - it seems borderline to me - I am happy to include.
 * Done.
 * "improving the ship's maintainable speed" add the estimates of maintainable cruising speed, and perhaps also of maximum battle speed, it should give a good idea of the ability of Hellenistic fleets to conduct long-range operations, as well as the range of battle.
 * As below, so long as you don't feel that it is getting off topic - it seems borderline to me - I am happy to include.
 * Done.


 * On the Roman dispositions, IIRC, Polybius uses the terminology of the Roman legions of the time, with triarii etc, which has led (again, IIRC) Goldsworthy or one of the other authors to the assumption that the Romans, being inexperienced in naval matters, simply adopted the legionary three-line formation to the sea. Such complex formations were definitely very unusual for galley fleets up to the introduction of gunpowder artillery, and even after; the usual formation was a line abreast or crescent, which is what the Carthaginians were doing. Some commentary on this might be in order here. I'll try to scrounge up my own sources for this, but that won't be till the weekend.
 * That theory has been depreciated for some time. Goldsworthy and other RSs explicitly rule it out. That being the case it didn't seem worth raising an old (mostly based on Tarn's 1907 analysis) and thoroughly refuted theory in order to then tell the reader that they can ignore it.
 * Good, I only half-remembered it myself. No worries about not including it, if it is thoroughly discredited.


 * "the then traditional tactic of ramming" hmmm, I think that in the Hellenistic period, naval combat was generally boarding/missile exchange rather than ramming actions. Ramming was really the forte of the Athenians, who exploited their far greater ship-handling skills and used the trireme as a sort of guided missile. Pretty much everyone else used good old-fashioned boarding, throughout antiquity, with catapults being added by the Hellenistic period.
 * Happy to (more) explicitly link this to Goldsworthy and/or put a caveat or two in. Let me reread the sources.
 * My sources reckon that ramming was more general in the classic age of the trireme and became less common as mass recruitment reduced oarsmen's skills, and as larger, stronger ships were less able to manoeuvre to ram, less likely to sink if rammed, and more able to carry larger complements of marines. I have tried to reflect this in the text. See what you think.
 * Looks good now, the coverage is sufficient for the average reader. It is not really as black-and-white as this, but it is besides the point here.


 * "many of their crew had little experience" I don't remember if Goldsworthy, Casson, Coates or Morrison mention how long it took to train a proficient oarsman, or at least a statement to the effect that such skills were both time-consuming and expensive to acquire and maintain; this might be useful to add either here or in the "Naval operations" section.
 * None of them do - that I have found - but if you think it not off topic I could to expand around this. (I do think that it is getting off topic, but you are the more experienced editor.)
 * Added a short reference and tweaked around in the corvus section. Have a look and modify as desired.


 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Not really an issue here.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Expansion is fairly recent, but no edit war or content dispute in sight.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Not required for GA, but the maps will need references for ACR/FAC.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Hi Gog the Mild, I think I may have gone a bit beyond the requirements for GA :). There are a few prose issues, mostly minor; otherwise it reads very well, and the battle description is excellent. There are a few unattributed opinions/statements, and some additions/reorganization of some introductory material will round it off nicely, and I've made a few other suggestions that might be of interest. The article definitely needs to include more of Polybius, though. Overall a very nice piece of work. Constantine  ✍  21:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's a bit beyond GA . But that is what I wanted, and needed. Thanks for being so thorough, and prompt. I have only skimmed your comments so far, and nothing I'd object to springs out. It is a bit rough, but I had been working on it for six weeks and repeatedly rereading it wasn't helping, so I decided to just get it out there. Re Polybius, my thought is to include a short section on "Sources" at the start and cover him there, rather than repeatedly insert him into the text. That sound acceptable, or at least worth trying? I'll stick this on my list and get round to it, possibly in bits, over the next week. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A "sources" section would be fine; however, if specific information from modern authors is interspersed with information from Polybius (especially in numbers), then please take care to distinguish them. Take your time, there's no rush. I'll also have a look in my own sources. Constantine  ✍  23:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Apologies for the delayed response. Both RL and WP have been busy.
 * 2) Next time I am stalling on an article close to GA, I will leave it for a month or two, rather than nominating it anyway. That has simply meant that you have had to do much of the work on the article that I should have. (From my point of view, recruiting your expertise and different point of view has been great. But it is not fair on you.)
 * 3) Thanks for coping with 2.
 * 4) All done, I think. Or, at least, addressed. Over to you.
 * 5) A Sources section, largely on Polybius, added. It seems a bit long/over detailed to me. But I thought that I would see what you thought before cropping.
 * 6) Don't forget that you only have a few trifling items to address in your GAN Battle of Marj Rahit (684). Absolutely no rush - just a nudge in case you had forgotten it.
 * Hi Gog the Mild, I had another look, the issues are indeed addressed. Made some tweaks here and there, but the article is definitely at GA level, and ready for more. Passing now, well done, once again. Constantine  ✍  20:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)