Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of the Lipari Islands

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Lipari Islands

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of the Lipari Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Several years into the First Punic War the Romans realised that they needed to challenge Carthage at sea and built a fleet. This is an account of its first encounter. Which was a complete disaster. Every ship in the squadron and its commander was captured. Only notable as the first naval clash of a very long war that was decided at sea. I brought this up to C class - it failed B class assessment, back in the day - and recently GA. I think that it meets the A class criteria; see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review–pass

edit

I have reviewed the sources and can find no issues. (I did correct one of the author's names based on prior comments). No source checks done. buidhe 23:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments
edit

As with other articles in this series, I question the relevance of the "Sources" section as it is not directly relevant to the subject. buidhe 23:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe and many thanks for yet again picking up the sources review. I appreciate it. I am relatively neutral regarding this. I have a mild preference to leave "Sources" in, but would be happy to delete the whole section. Except other reviewers would almost certainly object. When my first First Punic War article, Battle of Cape Ecnomus, got to GAN it attracted "Given that any modern account largely relies on Polybius, I would strongly suggest also adding explicit references to his work."
How would you feel if I were to cut it right down and made it a brief sub-section of "Background"? I have no intention of taking this one to FAC - there is not enough material in the primary sources - so it may not be such a touchy issue. And we then see what other reviewers think?
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to including something about Polybius, the current section just seems a bit disproportionate given that it isn't directly related to the article subject. buidhe 18:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

  • suggest "The Romans went on to win the following two, larger, naval encounters"→"The Romans went on to win the two larger naval encounters that followed"
Done.
  • As I have mentioned elsewhere where it has been inserted, I am fully in support of the Primary sources section on the basis of Polybius' critical importance to accounts of the battle, and the section's role as important background
  • link Ancient Carthage in "between Carthaginian" and drop later link
Done.
  • suggest more closely targeting by changing the link to Greek language to Ancient Greek
Done.
  • link Sicily for Sicilian
Done.
  • link city-state
Done.
  • suggest "able to carry embarked legionaries as marines" and drop later link to Roman legion
You have lost me. I can't find this phrase in the article, nor more than one reference to ligion(aries).
  • move to the link to consul to first mention
Done.
  • the link to Messana is actually a redirect duplink of the first one to Messina
Oops. Removed.
  • for Lipari Islands pipelink Aeolian Islands
Done.
  • "pejorative cognomen Asina, which means donkey in Latin." swap the italics to the foreign term
Done.
  • is there an article for the following skirmish where Hannibal Gisco lost most of his ships?
No.
  • suggest "Later in the same year, Scipio's fellow consul, Gaius Duilius"
Done.
  • author-link Nigel Bagnall, Lionel Casson, William V. Harris, Fik Meijer, Richard Miles (historian), Jeffrey Royal, Sebastiano Tusa, Peter Jones (classicist) and Brian Herbert Warmington
Done.

That's all I could find, nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Peacemaker, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I edited the article to reflect what I meant above (where I wasn't clear). Rv if needed. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • the year Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio in Lipara harbour Isn't harbour part of the proper noun?
Fair point. Fixed.
  • on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin and maybe add "Old" before "Greek".
Latin unlinked. Greek is already linked to Ancient Greek.
In what way? You click on "Greek" and get an article on a variant of the Greek language. Even in the worst case (which I do not believe applies here) it meets "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense."
  • a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage Rome is too common to link.
Unlinked.
  • sides wished to control Syracuse, the most powerful city-state on Sicily If I look at the map next to this sentence; I see there is only one city-state on the island?
There is only one shown on the map with separate territory. Messana was a city state. A number of others were in Carthage or Syracuse's sphere of influence. Lipara was a city state.
  • around 100 long tons (110 short tons; 100 tonnes) Link tonnes.
Done.
  • that the garrison of Lipara was willing Add island here.
Why? I am referring to the city of Lipara, not the Lipari islands.
  • Ohhh add city then instead of island.
Done. Although the next sentence already says "Lipara was the main port of the Lipari Islands ..."
  • fled inland and the consul himself --> "fled inland and the Consul himself"?
Done.
  • captured, most with little damage.[44][45][43] Re-order the refs.
Done.
  • corvus was a bridge 1.2 metres (4 ft) wide and 11 metres (36 ft) long --> "corvus was a bridge 1.2 m (4 ft) wide and 11 m (36 ft) long".
Done.
  • The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus Unlink Latin in note a.
Done.
  • the Lipari islands, also known as the Aeolian Islands I don't believe the Aeolian Islands if it's already linked by the Libari islands' link.
Unlinked.
  • A quinquereme carried a crew of 300 No colon here?
Nope.
  • but lost most of his ships.[48][47] Re-order the refs here.
Done.
  • As the first ever Roman warships Shouldn't "firs ever" have a hyphen?
Added.
  • little more than a skirmish, and is mostly notable as the first naval encounter --> " little more than a skirmish, and is most notable as the first naval encounter"?
Done.
Hi CPA-5 and thanks for your usual sterling job. All of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5: and back . Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

edit
  • In 264 BC the states of Carthage and Rome went to war, starting the First Punic War. This reads awkwardly. Suggest: "The First Punic War between Carthage and Rome broke out in 264 BC."
Good thinking. Done.
  • It was the long-standing Roman procedure to appoint two men each year, known as consuls Consuls were not appointed; suggest changing "appoint" to "elect".
Done.
  • Consider moving the last paragraph of Ships into the next section.
Done.
  • the Consul himself was taken prisoner De-captitalise "consul"
Done.
  • The battle was little more than a skirmish, and is most notable as the first naval encounter of the Punic Wars and the first time Roman warships had engaged in battle. Suggest changing "and" to "but" and dropping "most": "The battle was little more than a skirmish, but is notable as the first naval encounter of the Punic Wars and the first time Roman warships had engaged in battle." This should be in the lead as well.
Done.
  • This allowed marines to board enemy ships and capture them, rather than employing the previously traditional tactic of ramming. Except that in the Ships section you said: In the century prior to the Punic Wars, boarding had become increasingly common and ramming had declined. (Also: drop "previously")
Good point. I am trying to have it both ways, aren't I? I have changed it to "This allowed marines to more easily board enemy ships and capture them.
  • Suggest splitting the second last paragraph after fn 33
Done.
All in all, a fine article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hawkeye and thanks for the review. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_the_Lipari_Islands&oldid=958844197"