Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Panormus/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) 20 June 2020 [1].

Battle of Panormus[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The next gripping instalment in "Battles of the First Punic War". The last of the only four land battles of the 23-year-long war. There are elephants! I believe that I have this one up to a FAC-worthy standard, but see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit swamped with long peer reviews currently, so I might not be able to comment here before it already has enough support, so I just wanted to ask if there are more sequels in the works for when I get my hands free (and if they have elephants)? FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You want to get 'em while the gettings good FunkMonk. There is a strictly limited supply of battles involving elephants. I hope, possibly, to bring to FAC at some stage another naval battle (no elephants), the treaty which ended the war (no elephants), and one last land battle (sadly elephants make only a fleeting appearance in it). And, at some point, the over-arching First Punic War (with brief mentions of elephants). Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it the wrong way, but I hope this doesn't get promoted as quickly as your other FACs then, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up both maps
Both enlarged.
  • File:Stele_des_Polybios.jpg: source link is dead, and this isn't a two-dimensional work as claimed by the PD-Art tag
Livius have reorganised. Source link updated.
Quite right. And redundant anyway. Removed.
  • File:Altar_Domitius_Ahenobarbus_Louvre_n3_(cropped).jpg: as above, not 2D
True. Article L122-5 of the French Code of Intellectual Property applies and I have indicated this.
  • File:C._Caecilius_Metellus_Caprarius,_denarius,_125_BC,_RRC_269-1.jpg should include an explicit tag for the coin. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is an "explicit tag"? T8612 (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A specific tag identifying the copyright status of the coin. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, there needs to be two copyright tags when photographing a coin, one for the image, one for the coin as a created work.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which I frequently stumble over. I had taken the OTRS ticket to cover this.
I have no idea what to do though. I've already put a copyright tag. T8612 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for the photograph. The coin itself was not created by CNG and is not under a CC license; it's in the public domain due to its age and just needs a tag to say so. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support All looks good. Very few comments.
  • "The battle took place during the First Punic War." This seems awkwardly placed and the information would seem to me better given in the first sentence.
I have worked it into the first sentence, if you don't think that makes it too crowded.
  • "Other sources include coins, inscriptions, coins and archaeological evidence.[18]" I'm all for coins in moderation but ...
Can't have too many coins. Fixed.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are easily pleased today Wehwalt. Thanks for looking at it so promptly. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment from T8612[edit]

  • In the lede "devastate the crops of Rome's ally cities", shouldn't it be "allied cities"?
I think that the meaning communicates best as 'of the cities of Rome's allies'. Good spot. Changed. That OK with you?
  • Can you expand the caption for the stele of Polybius? Like the date of creation, or where it is kept. You have mentioned a date for the Ahenobarbus relief. As far as I remember, you have details in Walbank's Polybius.
On my screens expanding that caption by more than a word or two creates MOS:SANDWICHes, and even shuffling causes ugly breaks of section header lines. (As you know, I usually go with longer captions for the Polybius image, but in this case I just don't have the space. I was in two minds as to whether to ditch it altogether.)
  • I would expect to find the word "mercenaries" in the description of Carthaginian armies, it is more explicit than "foreigners" imo. Moreover, it echoes the Mercenary War. Perhaps you could add that the officers remained Punic (Xanthippus being an exception).
I am extremely unkeen on the use of the word "mercenary" which I have not used to describe Carthaginian troops in any of my 13 1PW articles. It was a derogatory expression used by their enemies (the Romans) and depreciated by most modern scholars, eg Goldsworthy's "a gross oversimplification". (They served under a variety of arrangements; for example, some were the regular troops of allied cities or kingdoms seconded to Carthage as part of formal arrangements.) "Mercenary War" also tends not to be used by modern scholars - eg Hoyos' Truceless War. The Romans - surprise! - don't refer to the troops of their own often unwilling allies as "mercenaries".
I could add the following explanation

Roman sources refer to these foreign fighters derogatively as "mercenaries", but the modern historian Adrian Goldsworthy describes to this as "a gross oversimplification". They served under a variety of arrangements; for example, some were the regular troops of allied cities or kingdoms seconded to Carthage as part of formal arrangements.

Personally I don't think that it is necessary, but if you think that it is it could be inserted.
That would be nice (I would say "Greek and Roman sources"). I didn't think of mercenary as a derogatory word though. T8612 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
T8612: Done. (Many people do. And the Romans intended it derogatorily.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, apart from the repetition of "arrangements" in the same sentence. Perhaps you can say "alliance" or "treaty". T8612 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot. Changed to "treaties". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this period Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate southern Spain, much of the coastal regions of North Africa, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, and the western half of Sicily in a military and commercial empire." I think the "during this period" should be removed or reworded, because Carthage already had most of these territories before Roman expansion.
Fair enough. Changed to 'By this period ...'

Its own expansion dates from the 6-5th century (in fact Carthage became hegemonic among all the Phoenician settlements of the Western Mediterranean, it did not really conquer lands).

Yes. That's why I write that Rome "had conquered"; but Carthage had "had come to dominate".

In short, its Empire was older than Rome's.

  • Nothing else to say. T8612 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok supporting now. Great job. Will you do all the battles of the First Punic War? T8612 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that T8612. Responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

I don't want to miss the last elephant war here, but this'll be a placeholder for now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As last time, link names and places in captions and explain context for Polybius image?
@FunkMonk: Good for you. Done and done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Denarius of C. Caecilius Metellus Caprarius" What's the first C. for? His article says his first name was Gaius?
C. is the standard abbreviation for Gaius. See here. It's because C was invented before G in Latin. Since Romans used C. in inscriptions, modern academic literature has retained this abbreviation. T8612 (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Celtic?
Done.
  • "The reverse depicts the triumph of his ancestor Lucius Caecilius Metellus, with the elephants he captured at Panormus." The Commons description says "Jupiter driving biga of elephants left"?
The Commons description is taken from the auction website. The interpretation that the scene depicts Metellus' triumph comes from the source (Crawford' Roman Republican Coinage). T8612 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the Commons description should be modified to also state this to avoid confusion? FunkMonk (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. If you do that, you have to add sources to the Commons description and it gets awkward (though I have no idea of Commons' policies regarding this). The Commons description is still factually correct. T8612 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So did the elephants have a double meaning? FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Officially, the scene is Jupiter driving a biga of elephants, because at the time Romans could not depict personal stuff on the coins (minted by magistrates). However, since Metellus made a triumph in the Circus with elephants, it is obvious that it is a reference to this event. So yes, there is a double meaning, like most coins minted during the Roman Republic. T8612 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the only reliable source I have is Crawford. Neither an auctioneer's blurb while trying to sell the coin, nor, I am afraid, T8612's erudite comments meet the threshold. Changing the Commons description is a new one on me, but I don't see why not, so long as the original uploader doesn't object.
  • "Infuriated by this missile fire the elephants fled" Infuriated even? Not just scared? Anyhow, the article body doesn't specify they were infuriated.
I can source it. And investigating, it seems that elephants behave differently when annoyed to when frightened. Or one source uses "enraged". But I take your larger point. I have gone with a more neutral, and less eyebrow raising, "panicked" per Goldsworthy, and matched the lead to the main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that's all I could find, one can hope Hannibal's elephants will also make an appearance here one day... FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Placeholder: will go Grecian in an hour or two. ——Serial # 13:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titter ye not! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Easy work here, thanks!
Done.
  • Your "Further reading" item has been archived, it appears.
Cheers.
  • Per MOS:INITIALS, an initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien).
Fixed.
  • The '74 edition of Roman Republican Coinage was two volumes; know which this is?
It wasn't my addition, but it turns out to be volume I. Fixed. Ah: I see that the resident expert agrees.
It's the first one, but it's not that important as page numbering is spread over the two tomes. Now that I've checked it, there is a mistake with Walbank 1979. Walbank published his Commentary in three tomes over the years, Tome 1 in 1957, Tome 2 in 1967, and Tome 3 in 1979. The First Punic War is treated in the first one, while the article mentions Tome 3. Correct ref is ISBN-13: 978-0198141525. Gog, you will probably have to change your other articles with this ref. T8612 (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. (I shall amend the others.)
Interestingly I have only cited this work in one other article, where I correctly refer to volume 1, 1957. I don't know what went wrong this time, but thanks for picking it up.
  • It's unnecessary to link to the same book six times; it might be, if you could link to the individual chapters, but of course GBooks are wanky like that. (Rankov's entry, for example, doesn't lose anything not being linked for the seventh time.)
As you will. Delinked.
  • Talking of Rankov, his entry, although to the same edition of Hoyos, has a different ISBN to the others?
I have standardised on what it says in the book, even though WorldCat and the hyphenator disagree.
Done.
The references/bibliography are formatted consistently.
The monographs are either authored by experts in the field, published by respectable presses...or both. The journals are confirmed as each utilising a process of blind peer review. Works cited are of the highest quality.
I have found no unused sources whose inclusion would significantly improve the article further.
The only remaining question has to be: how much does a Grecian earn?  :) All the best! ——Serial # 13:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial # Mr Howerd says its six denarii a year all found, and all the strigiling you can handle. Many thanks for this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

Hi Ian, given the progress above, could I have permission to push the next one above the parapet? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Push it over the parapet and see if anyone ducks? Why not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 17 June 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_Panormus/archive1&oldid=963647155"