Talk:Battle of the Lipari Islands

	Battle of the Lipari Islands has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 27, 2020 Good article nominee Listed May 26, 2020 WikiProject A-class review Approved
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 22, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the initial naval battle of the First Punic War, the Roman sailors fled, with their commander and the entire fleet captured by the Carthaginians?
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Classical A‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles A This article has been rated as A-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Africa: Tunisia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (assessed as Low-importance). Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Phoenicia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

C class. The introduction should mention the two commanders, Boodes and Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio "Asina". The article does not have a lot of information (B2 = no) which may be because it does not exist. Maybe another reviewer would be more generous. Djmaschek (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Djmaschek: Many thanks for looking at this. I have no intention of hawking the article around looking for a more favourable review. Mostly because yours are usually on the money: firm but fair and often with insightful (or just obvious but overlooked) pointers as to how to improve. I have expanded the lead, and added a little to the main article. This has more or less exhausted the sources I am aware of. You are correct, there isn't a lot of information on this skirmish. It is only notable because it was the first ever naval clash of the Romans and the Carthaginians. The ancient sources don't help; one modern historian comments "Polybius [excepted]. . . other sources are fragmentary, consisting of anecdotes, many of which are implausible. The very nature of the war makes it difficult for them to provide a coherent account." Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Djmaschek. 18 months on, hopefully a little wiser regarding the ways of Wikipedia, I have had another crack at this. I would be grateful for any comments you may have as to how close it may now be t B class. Obviously, if time or motivation don't permit then I entirely understand. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Lipari Islands/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 22:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It'll probably take me a couple days to get started (I'm in the process of reviewing a lengthy BLP article right now), but once I get started, I should be prompt about getting the review done. Hog Farm (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I only nominated it four days ago. Thanks for picking it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

• 1. Prose ✓ Pass
• 2. Verifiability ✓ Pass
• 3. Depth of coverage ✓ Pass
• 4. Neutrality ✓ Pass
• 5. Stability ✓ Pass
• 6. Images ✓ Pass
• 7. Miscellaneous ✓ Pass

Comments

1

• Lead's a touch short. It would be nice to get a brief summary of the lead-up to the battle and the aftermath of the battle in the lead.

Expanded. See what you think.

• In the infobox, you spell Boodes without the ö, but the special character is used throughout the rest of the article. This usage should be consistent.

Done.

• I think "raided the Roman's" should be "raided the Romans'", given that Romans is a plural.

Done.

• " although hexaremes (six oarsmen per bank)" - It's not readily evident or common knowledge that the bank referred to is a tier of rowers. This can be extrapolated from the diagram easily, but images don't always show up well on mobile browsers. Is there a way that this can be explained without necessitating a WP:UNDUE length of description?

Well, I could go with

The generally accepted theory regarding the arrangement of oarsmen in quinqueremes is that there would be sets – or files – of three oars, one above the other, with two oarsmen on each of the two uppermost oars and one on the lower, for a total of five oarsmen per file. This would be repeated down the side of a galley for a total of 28 files on each side; 168 oars in total.

but that does seem to be getting undue, so I have chopped mention of the other ship types. Does that work for you?

• "Shortly after the Lipara victory, Hannibal" (in aftermath section) - Is this still Hannibal Gisco? If so, probably best to use the first name. "Hannibal" in the minds of most readers invokes Hannibal. Even though that Hannibal wasn't born at this point, it would probably still be best to avoid the confusion, given that not many readers are experts on the Punic Wars.

Done.

• "Using the corvus the Romans captured 50 Carthaginian vessels[note 3] and dealt them a sharp defeat." - Substitute "the Carthaginians" for "them". In the context of the sentence as written, the object of the pronoun is "vessels".

Done.

2

3

• Do we have any indication of how many casualties were incurred in number of soldiers? I understand this is a figure that may just not be known.

Nope. It is not even something I could off the record OR. One suspects low - possibly very low, with most of the crews bolting - but having just rechecked the five standard secondary RSs there is not a hint of this.

• You describe a later skirmish where Hannibal faced the Romans with 50 ships and lost most of them. If this action has a name/article it should be mentioned/linked.

No name. It gets a single short sentence in the primary sources - that's it. And never been named by a modern source that I am aware of. So extremely doubtful that it will ever even warrant a stub.

4

5

6

7

• See MOS:BOLDAVOID. Links should not be placed in the boldface in the first sentence.

Fixed.

• The sources are not all in alphabetical order, Shutt is listed before Rankov (not a GA factor, but still something that's worth fixing)

Fixed.

Placing on hold, Gog the Mild. I'm testing a new way to organize GAR comments, a handful of my old reviews got very stream of conciousness, which didn't always make for a clear review. Hog Farm (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm and thanks again. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild - Passing now, looks good. It just occurred to me that the best way to incorporate the differences is rower placement between the ships may be as a note. Hog Farm (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, yeah, good thinking. I may try that in other articles. But I still think that it is a bit off topic for this one. And thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]