Talk:Battle of the Aegates/GA1
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Cplakidas in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Goody, yet another Punic Wars naval battle :). Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't realise that they were that thick on the ground.
Thanks for taking it on. I am hoping to take this one all the way, so feel free, if you wish, to give it the works. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Avec plaisir :)
- Do we really need the modern Italian name in the lede?
- Gone.
- During this period the standard warship of the Carthaginian navy, I'd say of both navies, or not?
- I am entirely happy to change this, but the point is to empathise that the Romans were imitating the Carthaginians - see two paragraphs down.
- I understand that, but I try to see this from the perspective of the average reader. A clear statement that both navies used the same type of ship is preferable than letting him work it out, and it does not detract from the further elaboration later on that this was the result of the Romans copying the Carthaginians twice over.
- I have gone with "During this period the standard warship was the quinquereme"> That work?
- That's actually probably better than what I had in mind. 17:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have gone with "During this period the standard warship was the quinquereme"> That work?
- I understand that, but I try to see this from the perspective of the average reader. A clear statement that both navies used the same type of ship is preferable than letting him work it out, and it does not detract from the further elaboration later on that this was the result of the Romans copying the Carthaginians twice over.
- I am entirely happy to change this, but the point is to empathise that the Romans were imitating the Carthaginians - see two paragraphs down.
- In 260 BC Romans set out... this paragraph, I think, belongs immediately after the During this period the standard warship... introduction in terms of narrative flow. I would also recommend condensing somewhat the The generally accepted theory... section, as its significance is not immediately apparent: since both sides essentially shared the same design, the details such as the rowers arrangement, oarsmen box etc are possibly redundant. For the construction details, just link to quinquereme, there's an explanation there. I think the two things that really are relevant to the lay reader are a) that the ships were armored and carried marines and catapults, and b) that at least some highly trained personnel (the one trained man per oar) was necessary to handle these ships effectively, which is what the next section Getting the oarsmen to row as a unit,... starts with.
- I have trimmed the technical detail a fair bit, and eliminated a paragraph entirely; see what you think. I suspect that the whole section may need recasting, but unless you require it for GAN I am inclined to leave it for pre-ACR.
- Changes look good to me.
- I have trimmed the technical detail a fair bit, and eliminated a paragraph entirely; see what you think. I suspect that the whole section may need recasting, but unless you require it for GAN I am inclined to leave it for pre-ACR.
- This allowed Roman legionaries... link to Roman legion
- Done.
- saving the financial strain reducing or removing the financial strain
- Good point. Done.
- the number of adult male citizens had declined mention that the citizens provided the manpower for the legions
- More to the point they provided the manpower to the navy, which is where most of the fatalities were. Done.
- gathered off the Aegates Islands be consistent in using either Aegates or Aegadian (as in the lede). Given the article title, I'd prefer the former
- Done.
- with earth and timber camps and walls was this a continuous circumvallation a la Alesia or a series of strongpoints?
- There was only a narrow neck of land to block - that was continuous. Plus strong points to try to interdict or make life difficult for Carthaginian ships; eg those they tried to anchor the boom from. So a bit of both.
- "last-ditch effort" to end the war. to end the war on their terms, I guess, otherwise exhaustion would force them to do so
- Actually, that's not what Royal says. If you can access JSTOR [1] last line of the first column of page 37 and the first three of the second.
- Hmmm, then better give the full quote. Although I have to note that the opinion is at odds with the article thus far, i.e., of both states being stretched to breaking point. IIRC, Goldsworthy makes an argument in his book on the Punic Wars that the two sides operated on different assumptions: the Carthaginians, that wars ended in a treaty that left one to try again, a la the Hellenistic nor, whereas the Romans saw the peace treaty as the establishment of hegemony over them. This might be added here (entirely optional) to explain why the Romans were more 'decisive' and willing to make comparatively heavier sacrifices to achieve a decisive result.
- That's pretty good recall. "It had developed into a struggle in which the Romans were attempting to decisively defeat the Carthaginians and, at a minimum, control the whole of Sicily.[36] The Carthaginians were engaging in their traditional policy of waiting for their opponents to wear themselves out, in the expectation of then regaining some or all of their possessions and negotiating a mutually satisfactory peace treaty." is cited to this.
- Hmmm, perhaps then simply add "In contrast to the Romans' pursuit of a comprehensive victory over their opponent, the Carthaginians were..." or something similar. And please add the full quote on the 'last-ditch effort'. Constantine ✍ 17:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Crossed edits. The full quote is, IMO, a bit long winded, so I have cut it.
- Re your proposed addition, I will it if that's what is needed. But is it not a near duplicate of "the Romans were attempting to decisively defeat the Carthaginians and, at a minimum, control the whole of Sicily" in the previous paragraph?
- I think the difference in approaches should be emphasized as it is not entirely evident (it was not just differing strategic goals, but entirely different conceptions of the purpose of warfare). However, it is no do-or-die requirement; merely my gut feeling :). Constantine ✍ 18:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm, perhaps then simply add "In contrast to the Romans' pursuit of a comprehensive victory over their opponent, the Carthaginians were..." or something similar. And please add the full quote on the 'last-ditch effort'. Constantine ✍ 17:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- That's pretty good recall. "It had developed into a struggle in which the Romans were attempting to decisively defeat the Carthaginians and, at a minimum, control the whole of Sicily.[36] The Carthaginians were engaging in their traditional policy of waiting for their opponents to wear themselves out, in the expectation of then regaining some or all of their possessions and negotiating a mutually satisfactory peace treaty." is cited to this.
- Hmmm, then better give the full quote. Although I have to note that the opinion is at odds with the article thus far, i.e., of both states being stretched to breaking point. IIRC, Goldsworthy makes an argument in his book on the Punic Wars that the two sides operated on different assumptions: the Carthaginians, that wars ended in a treaty that left one to try again, a la the Hellenistic nor, whereas the Romans saw the peace treaty as the establishment of hegemony over them. This might be added here (entirely optional) to explain why the Romans were more 'decisive' and willing to make comparatively heavier sacrifices to achieve a decisive result.
- Actually, that's not what Royal says. If you can access JSTOR [1] last line of the first column of page 37 and the first three of the second.
- Impressed by the energy of Catulus and Falto, the senate extended their terms of office beyond the normal one year. missing reference, and note here that they became proconsul (and propraetor respectively), since you use the term later.
- I can't believe I missed a cite. I'm going senile. Added. Becoming proconsul and proprietor added, linked and cited.
- wait for a following wind what is a 'following wind'? I understand it to mean 'westerly', so perhaps change it to that?
- Like a Following sea - I could link it. ("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. Therefore, the phrase "Fair winds and following seas," implies that a vessel will have good winds, and not have to pound into the waves.") Or Wiktionary link it to number three of [2]?
- Yes, a wiktionary link would work fine.
- Done.
- Yes, a wiktionary link would work fine.
- Like a Following sea - I could link it. ("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. Therefore, the phrase "Fair winds and following seas," implies that a vessel will have good winds, and not have to pound into the waves.") Or Wiktionary link it to number three of [2]?
- west of the island of Phorbantia (modern Levanzo) You have just introduced Levanzo at the start of the paragraph, perhaps move this there?
- It works for me as it is. But I am not sure I understand what you are proposing. Could you be more specific?
- I've edited it to show what I mean (introduce the island and context of its significance before the archaeological discoveries). Revert if you don't like it.
- OK. Fine by me. Thanks.
- I've edited it to show what I mean (introduce the island and context of its significance before the archaeological discoveries). Revert if you don't like it.
- It works for me as it is. But I am not sure I understand what you are proposing. Could you be more specific?
- survived to at least 2020 'survived to the present day' is more elegant, IMO, unless you anticipate Rome being destroye din the future ;)
- There is a wiki-policy somewhere against assuming that things will last into the future. I had something like your version originally, and took it out on a copy edit. But let's IAR by all means; if it is challenged down the road I shall call on you as an authority.
- Well, this 'authority' thinks that specifying a date is good and recommended practice something for things where change is expected (like composition of a parliament, or the opening times of a museum), but an archaeological site in Rome is really unlikely to change any time soon.
- There is a wiki-policy somewhere against assuming that things will last into the future. I had something like your version originally, and took it out on a copy edit. But let's IAR by all means; if it is challenged down the road I shall call on you as an authority.
- Henceforth Rome was the leading military power... I think we discussed this at Ecnomus as well: point out that while Roman supremacy was again seriously challenged in the Second Punic Wars, Roman thalassocracy was not.
- Weell. Actually, I cut and pasted what you had signed off on in Ecnomus, but amended as you suggest.
- Hah, this article has really few problems, so I focus on other things :P.
- Weell. Actually, I cut and pasted what you had signed off on in Ecnomus, but amended as you suggest.
- That's it on prose/content from a first reading, I will have another pass in a couple of days, and also look at sources and images then. Did some changes and minor corrections here and there. The article is as usual of high quality, and many parts are familiar from Ecnomus. I see no major difficulties in getting this to FA quickly. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Avec plaisir :)
- Thanks for the thorough review. A couple of bits still to come back to you on, but it is bed time here, so tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Constantine: all done and ready for your further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Gog, I've answered above on the few outstanding issues. I've also checked the images, they are fine, my only concern would be the caption of the naval ram photo, which replicates the image description. Although I don't doubt its accuracy, I would recommend finding a source for the statements there for ACR/FAC. Smith 1870 would need oclc, Morrison & Coates 1996 does not appear to be used, and please add issn to all journals. Constantine ✍ 15:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Morrison & Coates 1996 removed. OCLC added for Smith. ISSNs, I prefer not to: WP:CITE says "DOI and/or other identifiers are optional".
- Not a strict requirement, at least for GA, but at ACR/FAC I am frequently asked to give them. Constantine ✍ 17:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is the first time I have ever been asked for them. Let's see how it goes down the road.
- Crossed edits, but your additional points responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not a strict requirement, at least for GA, but at ACR/FAC I am frequently asked to give them. Constantine ✍ 17:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Morrison & Coates 1996 removed. OCLC added for Smith. ISSNs, I prefer not to: WP:CITE says "DOI and/or other identifiers are optional".
- Hi Gog, I've answered above on the few outstanding issues. I've also checked the images, they are fine, my only concern would be the caption of the naval ram photo, which replicates the image description. Although I don't doubt its accuracy, I would recommend finding a source for the statements there for ACR/FAC. Smith 1870 would need oclc, Morrison & Coates 1996 does not appear to be used, and please add issn to all journals. Constantine ✍ 15:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Constantine: all done and ready for your further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Answered above on the sole (minor) outstanding issue. Otherwise the article looks good, and I am happy to pass it right away. Looking forward to the ACT/FAC nominations. Well done, as usual :) Constantine ✍ 18:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)