Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre


 * 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 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre
An interesting little snippet of Roman history, these games celebrated the opening of the imperial amphitheatre (now known as the Colosseum) in 80 AD. There's all the normal gore and bloodshed you'd expect. Yomangani talk 13:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, looks like fine work to me. The Land 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support another excellent piece by Yomangani Jaranda wat's sup 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support speaking as one with a certain knowledge of the subject, I see nothing to criticise. Good, detailed, well-referenced work. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 09:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Do Hercules and Domitian need linking twice in the same section?
 * "The works of Suetonius and Cassius Dio focus on major events, while Martial provides us with some fragments of information on individual entertainments and the only detailed record of a gladiatorial combat in the arena to survive to the present day." - seems a bit wordy. Could "us with some" be removed?
 * "recently restored By Vespasian" - typo
 * "Abridgement of Roman History - Of Titus" - I think this needs an en dash even though it's a reference
 * "outside of Martial's account" - the of is redundant. Epbr123 15:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed linking, typo, en dash. Removed "us with" from the wordy sentence. Left the "of", as it's neither here nor there. Yomangani talk 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redundancy is here and there. "On the last day of the games, Titus wept openly, and, according to Dio, the next day, after officially dedicating the amphitheatre and the baths that had been built next to it, he died." - dedicated to who? Epbr123 13:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dio is the only source that mentions the dedication and he doesn't give details. If anybody was providing more than a guess I would have included it. Titus himself, Vespasian, Rome, the people, the gods, a god...take your pick.  Yomangani talk 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my delay in answering. Now that I have some time, I've started editing the article. I began with the single-sentence paragraph but then decided to edit the whole "Background" section. I've removed most of the info not directly related to the games, for instance, details about the construction of the Colosseum, which are already given on the Colosseum article. The same goes for the towns destroyed by Mount Vesuvius, which is not that relevant and already detailed in the respective article. After this cuts, I decided to split the section into Background (including construction and why Titus decided to held such a big game) and Sources which seems like a separate subject to me. I'll try to go over the rest of the article today, or maybe tomorrow. --Victor12 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead needs urgent work. As it is, it fails to provide a concise overview of the article as required by WP:LEAD. Currently, it only summarizes the sections on background and sources --Victor12 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We obviously differ on our opinions about what the role of the background section is. As far as I'm concerned it should be to allow the reader to look at the article from an informed viewpoint without having to look at other articles and filter out what is important for their reading of this article. I don't see duplicating small amounts of information between articles as a problem ( if that is proscribed then the whole of the background section should be removed). The sources section is background just as the building of the Colosseum is and just as the reign of Titus is, as it isn't detailing the topic itself. Removing what you removed helps the reader to miss the point about why it is likely Titus was mollifying the public and gods. If we don't know that Vespasian was reclaiming the land for Rome, don't know that it wasn't just a run of the mill eruption of Vesuvius, don't know that the Temple of Jupiter restored by Vespasian was destroyed in the fire etc. then it is more difficult to understand why placating the gods and people might be an element in the lavishness of the games. Your attempt at rewording the single-sentence paragraph removed the dedication as an end itself. I've reworded it again, removing one of the points to an earlier sentence. I do agree the lead needed work though and have bulked it up a little. Yomangani talk 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree so I'll just sum up my views on this article here.
 * As you said, placating the gods and people of Rome as a motivation for the game is an important idea so maybe it should be mentioned in the lead.
 * Regarding the layout of the article, in my opinion, "Sources" should be a separate section, not under "Background" because why the games were held and how do we know about them are quite different topics.
 * Also in this section, it seems to be there's too much detail on the construction of the Colosseum. Also, do we need to know all the cities destroyed by the Vesuvius? Mentioning Pompeii seems enough to identify which eruption this refers to.
 * It seems to me prose needs to be improved. As it stands now there are several instances of pretty long sentences and a single-sentence paragraph under "Reign of Titus". An example of this is On the last day of the games, Titus wept openly, and, according to Dio, the next day, after officially dedicating the amphitheatre and the baths that had been built next to it, he died in the "Later events" section. It could easily be split in two sentences. Also, is it necessary to remark that "the baths" refers to the ones "that had been built next to it"? It seems clear which baths the paragraph is talking about as it has already been explained in the "Background" section.
 * There is some overlinking in the article. In the "Animal entertainments" section, common words are linked such as elephant, lion and camel. I think this kind of words should be delinked per Only make links that are relevant to the context.
 * In this section, I think prose goes into excessive detail, for instance, by mentioning the 1486 Medici giraffe. That's IMHO and we need more opinions on this as we are currently on a deadlock over this point.
 * Also in this section, in the sentences when it was supposed to fight, it had calmed down. Obviously intended to face a company of men armed with spears and a host of other animals, it seems to me the word "Obviously" is out of place and should be removed.
 * Overall, I think the article is a great start towards being a FA but it still needs a thorough copyedit to improve its prose. --Victor12 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first point and added it to the lead. No comment on your second point. On your third point, the list of cities seems appropriate but I question the use of the Vesuvius image (why is an image of this required?). On your sixth point, it seems ok to me. On your fourth, fifth, and seventh points I've done what I can. I hope this helped. --maclean 05:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Interesting read, great article. --maclean 05:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.