Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Cape Ecnomus/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2019 [1].

---

Battle of Cape Ecnomus

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

After fourteen FAC nominations in a row featuring English military encounters between 1333 and 1355, I offer up one from the First Punic War. 2,275 years ago was fought the largest naval battle in history, by number of combatants involved. It didn't much effect the war, or even decide the campaign it was a part of. Below is my attempt to recount it. It went through GAN in February and ACR in June. Since it has had a map lovingly crafted by Amitchell125 which is, IMHO, superb. See what you think of it and of the rest of the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Nice, this will be one of those articles I'll review mainly to get to know more about the subject. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• I wonder why so many of the images have been resized so small instead of default sizes? I guess it's to prevent interference with titles below short sections?

I was told at the ACR that the images were causing sandwiching. I couldn't replicate on any of four devices, so I kept reducing them until they were happy.

Hmmm, as far as I understand it, it is to prevent sandwiching between images, but I don't see how it would be the case here. No big deal anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The image reviewer asked me to enlarge them again, so I have. I prefer this size and hope that you will too.

• Licata is a duplink of Phintias, do we need both? You already explain the latter is the former name.

IMO it is helpful to a reader to have both, but I won't let that stand in the a=way of your approval if you consider it unnecessary.

Not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk: thanks for taking a look at this. I hope that it is informative. I certainly found this dally in the Punic Wars entertaining. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Other, later, histories of the war exist, but in fragmentary or summary form" And are they congruous with Histories?

No source I can find offers a direct comparison in that way. They tend to describe the sources and leave it to the reader to decide. I have already included a comment from Tipps. There is very little on Econmus from any other source: Tipps "Most extant treatments of the battle by ancient authors are disappointingly brief". I could add "The classicist Adrian Goldsworthy states that "Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts" " if you think that it helps.

Yeah, just to remove any doubt. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• "discovered several bronze rams in the area, which appear to confirm the date and location of the battle" Link ram? I first thought it was a bronze goat...

Done. Apologies, I linked ramming and missed this.

• "destroyed with their city" Link to their city first here? Rome could also be linked at first mention.

Both done.

• "The war there was approached a stalemate" Is the "was" needed? r should it be "had"? Or "was approaching"?

Good point. I have gone with "The war there had reached a stalemate".

• Now the article doesn't mention why it was called the Punic war, could maybe be mentioned somehow that Carthaginians were Punics/Phoenicians? I know it's details that would be explained in the parent article, but I still wonder if there should be some mention of this to clarify for those unfamiliar with the subject?

Added as a footnote at first mention.

• "(close to what is now Tunis)" I wonder if this should rather be mentioned after the first mention of Carthage?

This is the first mention of Carthage as a city, as opposed to Carthage the state; other than "their city" where it wouldn't, IMO, be appropriate. In a similar way, "Rome" sometimes means the state and sometimes the city.

@FunkMonk:: Thanks for looking through. Your comments above now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Last comments now added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Could that large image under Battle get a descriptive caption? Though it might seem self-explanatory, I think something like the description on Commons could be helpful, "A map/diagram of the phases of the Battle of Ecnomus".

Seems a bit redundant to me, but done. I copied over the alt text

• Echelon formation is linked twice in the same section.

Whoops. Fixed.

• "Several Roman ships were rammed and sunk, as were several Carthaginians." Carthaginian? More congruent with Roman.

Drat. Thank you. Done.

Thanks again FunkMonk. Any more? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me, hope it becomes a series! FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk. Sadly, source material on the First Punic War is extremely limited and so there are not many clashes which will support an article. I did enjoy researching this, so may well look at Battle of Drepana and Battle of the Aegates one day. Currently I am working up a trio of articles on naval aspects of the Seven Years' War; the first, Battle of Lagos, is at ACR. (Hint!) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I went through this in detail at Milhist ACR, so have little to add. Great map sequence, BTW, it really helps in understanding of the battle.

Thanks. Andrew does great work, doesn't he?

A couple of minor comments:

• "along the coast of Sicily Heraclea Minoa" to?

Whoops. Thank you.

• "Regulus then moved to reinforce Vulso's attack on the third Carthaginian squadron" but isn't the Carthaginian 1 squadron that is against the coast? Isn't Vulso (Roman I squadron) attacking the Carthaginian 1 squadron (which is attacking the Roman III squadron)?

Yes to all of that. I am using "third" to mean 'the third and final of the three squadron under discussion', not 'the squadron labeled as number 3', but I can see how it is confusing. I would like the description to be independent of the map, so how about: 'Regulus then moved to reinforce Vulso's attack on the last Carthaginian squadron still fighting, which was now surrounded'?

I think that keeping the description independent of the map partly defeats the purpose of having the map. I think you would be better off being more explicit and maintaining the links to the map throughout. When reading the account of the battle, I had to go across to the map regularly to confirm exactly what squadron was being discussed, and the original sentence didn't make that any easier, as I had to interrogate the map to an even greater extent to see which one was Regulus' squadron, then follow its movements to see which one is being referred to. Calling it the third Carthaginian squadron at this point was just unnecessarily confusing when referring to the map, which is what most readers will be doing. Alternatively, but not as useful as explicitly linking the description to the map throughout, would be to better explain which squadron this was in terms of its position, such as "the Carthaginian squadron fighting near the coast", or similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67: are you suggesting that I should give the squadron designation from the map after each and every mention of a squadron? Apologies if I am labouring this, but when I asked your advice on this issue pre-nom you responded "I think introducing them using the relevant numeral at first mention is all that is required given the map is so clear." Obviously on rereading you may change your mind, but I want to check that I am reading your words correctly. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

On rereading, I think at a minimum you should maintain the numerical references in the text when mentioning them, even if you don't actually use them in parentheses each time (retain the initial parentheses). Refer to the third Roman squadron or first Carthaginian squadron. For example, you could say "The third Roman squadron towing the transports" and "The first Carthaginian squadron, on the landward side, attacked the third Roman squadron towing transports" etc. Is that any clearer? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe so. Like this? Is it now easier to follow? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker67, that's good of you. Two good points. Both addressed, but could you see what you think to how I have handled the second. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the Punic War map (and caption needs editing for grammar), rower position diagram, and battle diagram

All four done.

• File:D473-birème_romaine-Liv2-ch10.jpg: where is the original work located, and does that location have freedom of panorama?

Removed as not really relevant. This ship type was not present at the battle.

• File:Hannibal_Slodtz_Louvre_MR2093.png should include a tag for the original work.

Done.

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for taking a look at this. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I shall be supporting the elevation of this splendid article, but, more meo, I have a few quibbles first.

• Lead
  • "Due to the combined total" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. I might be inclined to change "Due to the" to "With a" or some such.

Bless you sir. I believe that I have previously mentioned my regrettable overindulgence in American light fiction. Done.

• Sources
  • "(c. 200–c. 118 BC)" – the pop-up is clever, but do we need it twice within the one pair of brackets?

I believe so. But I am, as always, willing to bow to your superior judgement. Second pop-up removed.

• • "Carthaginian written records were destroyed … and his account of the First Punic War is based on several earlier, now lost, Greek and Latin sources" – I see what this means, I think, but it seems at first glance to mean that the surviving sources are earlier than the lost Carthaginian ones, which I don't think you mean.

American light fiction involving time travel. Rewritten to be more chronologically probable.

• • "the modern historian G. K. Tipps … much debated by more recent historians" – so Tipps isn't all that modern, perhaps?

Hmm. I have attempted to work around that. See what you think.

• Operations in Sicily
  • "their opponent to wear themselves out" – singular noun with plural pronoun

That actually works for me. I have pluralised the noun, but it now doesn't seem to quite scan.

• • "land based power" – hyphenate? (not sure – just raising the point)

Yes, you are correct. Perhaps the weakest of my many weak points. Hyphenated.

• Ships
  • The OED is with you all the way on the words for ships with three, four, five and six rows, but I just wonder (no reply needed) how 4- and 5-rowed ones get a Latin name but a 6-rowed one is in Greek. I'm rambling – ignore this.

I refer you to Hellenistic-era warships#Heavy warships. You may also care to browse the improbable Tessarakonteres.

• Battle
  • "However, the Romans had become more skilled" – nothing wrong with this, but it's the fourth (of five) "however" in the text and one does begin to notice the repetition of the word.

I habitually overuse this and weed vigorously before nominating. Either I forgot, or it was seriously over-howevered when it went through ACR. Now reduced to a solitary example.

Nothing there to cause alarm and despondency, and I'll look in again soon to add my support, I hope. – Tim riley talk 21:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Good evening Tim, and many thanks for dropping by. All of your entirely to the point comments addressed above. I await your next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy to support. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Well and widely referenced, balanced, highly readable and splendidly illustrated. A pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 08:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A few suggestions

• written some time after 167 BC

written sometime after 167 BC

Done.

• on the few occasions they had previously felt the need

on the few occasions, they had previously felt the need

That doesn't seem to make sense. (To me.)

• As novice shipwrights the Romans built copies

As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies

Done.

• six oarsman per bank

six oarsmen per bank

Done. Good spot.

• and in rough sea conditions the corvus became useless

and in rough sea conditions, the corvus became useless

I don't think so.

• by number of combatants involved

by the number of combatants involved

Done.

• Rather than sail direct from Phintias for North Africa

Rather than sail directly from Phintias for North Africa

OK.

• The Roman fleet in turn was devastated by a storm while returning to Italy

The Roman fleet, in turn, was devastated by a storm while returning to Italy

Done.

• The Roman third squadron, which had been towing the transports, felt themselves outmatched and retreated to the shore.

The Roman third squadron, which had been towing the transports, felt outmatched and retreated to the shore.

Well now. What I am trying to get away from is the suggestion that a "squadron" can "think", but I can see that this is not satisfactory. How about 'The commanders of the Roman third squadron, which had been towing the transports, felt themselves outmatched and retreated to the shore.'?

Just great.

@Hanberke: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

--Hanberke (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hanberke. Many thanks for those helpful suggestions. All addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

A clean bill of health.

• No spotchecks carried out
• All formats consistently presented
• No quality/reliability issues.

Very professionally done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine

I reviewed this for GA, but since I see a lot of work in the meantime, I'll throw another look at it. I'll be doing some copyedits as I go along, Gog the Mild, feel free to challenge/revert. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• the quinquereme or pentērēs I think we can dispense with the Greek term here, it is unnecessarily confusing

Good point. Dispensed with.

• knots is overlinked.

Fixed.

• Modern replicas of ancient galleys since there is only one such replica I know of, and you have mentioned the Olympias before, I'd suggest making it explicit here

Sensible. Done.

Fixed it abit, looks good.

• 80 picked legionaries. I don't have access to the sources right now, but were they really 'picked'? 26,000 legionaries is too large a force to be 'picked' in any realistic sense, and the size is pretty much the infantry of two standard consular armies of the time.

Goldsworthy: “The pick of the Roman infantry were taken on board.” Tipps: “an additional 80 picked men from the legions .... were embarked on each warship”. Polybius (Paton translation): “Selecting the best men from their land forces”. I can only go with what the sources provide.

OK then, if this relies on the primary account, no worries from me.

• and in sight of Mount Ecnomus why is this relevant?

Why is anything relevant. It is the only way that we know, or the participants knew, where the battle took place. It is a known fact, so why not include it? As we would include Sicily or Mediterranean. I have no objections to removing it if you prefer.

My point was why the mountain is relevant when we already know the location of the cape. In other words, why is the additional clarification necessary? Is this because the fleets were close to the shore so that the mountain was still visible? But this should be evident from the overall description of the battle... I don't have a problem with it remaining in the article, I am merely asking...

I understood. Like you, I am not overconcerned either way. Rereading, with as open a mind as I can manage, I am marginally in favour of leaving it in.

• Although the Romans had become more skilled over the four years since they first built their navy, while the recent large increase in the size of the Carthaginian navy meant many of their crews had little experience. If you want to keep this phrasing, then it must be connected to the previous sentence by removing the full stop after "standards of the Carthaginians" and inserting a comma. Otherwise, something like "However, the Romans had become more skilled over the four years since they first built their navy, while the recent large increase in the size of the Carthaginian navy meant many of their crews had little experience.".

I can see that my original phrasing doesn’t work, thank you. I have resolved it, I believe, but in a different way. See what you think.

Hah, I love my "however"s. Looks good.

Did I say a word?

• The battle was decided in the fight between the two fleets' centres. at the risk of verbosity, I would suggest reminding the reader which squadrons these were (2nd Carthaginian and I and II Roman), since the entire preceding section is about other squadrons, and the term 'centre' is a bit unclear in this confused battle. Furthermore, I would recommend breaking off this section (from "The battle was decided" on) and joining it to the next one, as more coherent.

Both done.

What is the {{and}} for?

A typo. Fixed.

• to adorn the rostra add a brief explanation that the rostra was the speaker's platform

Rereading, I have simply put it into English. I don't know what I was thinking, introducing it in Latin.

• Given that the article goes into some detail about wider issues (the navies, doctrines, ships, etc) I think it should be noted in the "Aftermath" section that Ecnomus (or perhaps the First Punic War) replaced Punic thalassocracy in the Western Med with a Roman one, to the extent that the Carthaginians fought the Second Punic War mostly on land.

It goes into the detail of areas necessary to understand the battle. The Second Punic War seems to me to be getting pretty remote. Although wherever one draws the line it is liable to be arbitrary. Nevertheless, once I can source it properly I will include a sentence to that effect.

I leave this to your discretion as article author. It certainly is not a deal breaker.

Rereading, you have a point about the transfer of thalassocracies. (Now there is a phrase to get your teeth into.) I have included something a little more general than you suggested, but which hopefully tapers out the Aftermath a little more satisfactorily..

That's all from me, apart from the nitpicking above, the article is in great shape and I will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 16:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Constantine, I am travelling at the moment, so I will make the last couple of tweaks once I can access my paper sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Constantine All addressed now. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Happy with your edits, and happy to support. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Query to the coordinators

@Ian Rose and Laser brain: Hi guys. I realise that this has only been open for 12 days, but considering the above I wondered if I might have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I generally prefer to wait until at least two weeks but, hey, it's been that now so feel free...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ian.

I figured that at worst you would say "No" or "In two days". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.