Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre
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 15:06, 14 August 2007.
An interesting little snippet of Roman history, these games celebrated the opening of the imperial amphitheatre (now known as the Colosseum) in 80 AD. There's all the normal gore and bloodshed you'd expect. Yomanganitalk 13:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks like fine work to me. The Land 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support another excellent piece by Yomangani Jaranda wat's sup 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support speaking as one with a certain knowledge of the subject, I see nothing to criticise. Good, detailed, well-referenced work. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 09:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Do Hercules and Domitian need linking twice in the same section?
- "The works of Suetonius and Cassius Dio focus on major events, while Martial provides us with some fragments of information on individual entertainments and the only detailed record of a gladiatorial combat in the arena to survive to the present day." - seems a bit wordy. Could "us with some" be removed?
- "recently restored By Vespasian" - typo
- "Abridgement of Roman History - Of Titus" - I think this needs an en dash even though it's a reference
- "outside of Martial's account" - the of is redundant. Epbr123 15:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed linking, typo, en dash. Removed "us with" from the wordy sentence. Left the "of", as it's neither here nor there. Yomanganitalk 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundancy is here and there. "On the last day of the games, Titus wept openly, and, according to Dio, the next day, after officially dedicating the amphitheatre and the baths that had been built next to it, he died." - dedicated to who? Epbr123 13:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dio is the only source that mentions the dedication and he doesn't give details. If anybody was providing more than a guess I would have included it. Titus himself, Vespasian, Rome, the people, the gods, a god...take your pick. Yomanganitalk 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundancy is here and there. "On the last day of the games, Titus wept openly, and, according to Dio, the next day, after officially dedicating the amphitheatre and the baths that had been built next to it, he died." - dedicated to who? Epbr123 13:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Victor12, replaced by comments below
- Comment.
- It seems to me that this article goes into excessive detail in several parts, to the point of providing info which is not really relevant for this subject. For instance, in the "Animal entertainments" section, second paragraph, it says Though they were first seen in Rome only in 58 BC,[11] and were impressive enough to be detailed in the games of Augustus and Commodus,[13] there is no mention of hippopotami at Titus' games. That's a quite long and convoluted sentence with two inline citations just to mention that no hippos were at the inauguration. The same happens in the sentence about giraffes. --Victor12 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence might be long, but it is hardly convoluted, and the number of inline citations has no bearing: if they were removed, which could be done in seconds, I'm sure fact tags would replace them sooner or later. How is it irrelevant to a discussion of the animals that were present to point out that hippos and giraffes were enough of a novelty that their absence from the record suggests they weren't present? Yomanganitalk 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is whether all this info is relevant for the current article. For instance, is it really necessary to mention the arrival of the Medici giraffe in 1486? As you said the relevant fact for the article is that hippos and giraffes were enough of a novelty that their absence from the record suggests they weren't present. Does that need to be explained in two really long sentences? What about just putting "Hippos and giraffes were rarely seen in Rome thus their absence from historical records suggest they weren't present at Titus' games" or something like that. Surely you can add one citation to support the rareness of such animals in Ancient Rome. --Victor12 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I was writing a summary of the article that approach would be lovely. Personally, if I'm told that they were rarely seen, I'd like some background on how we know that. This gives links to other articles that might fill in those details while giving some context in the article. Yomanganitalk 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But I'm not sure if you need that much background on what seems like a minor issue. If you do need it, then you'll also need some background on other statements. For instance Animal entertainments formed a central part of the games and normally took place in the morning would need some background and facts about the use of animals in Rome; matches between different creatures were common would need some background on those kind of matches in Roman times and how we know they were common; to mention just two cases. --Victor12 12:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, those need topics articles writing on them. I would have linked them if I'd been able to find anything appropriate. Yomanganitalk 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is not that you added a link but that you provided background on how we know hippos and giraffes were unknown in Rome. To be consistent throughout the article you'll have to provide the same kind of info on all other topics. For instance, how do we know matches between different creatures were common? --Victor12 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point I was trying to make was that here I can give a little context with a link to articles that should tell you more (I would prefer to link to an article on the games of Commodus rather than Commodus himself, as I'm sure they will merit an article, but I can only guess what the title would be). For the other areas you point out I'd have to cover the whole topic, as we don't have any articles on the format of Roman entertainments. As much as I'm a fan of redlinks, I don't think an expansion that pointed to a non-existent reference would help. As soon as those articles are written I'll link to them, which will probably involve a sentence that expands on the theme slightly. I can move the hippo and giraffe info into a footnote if you like, but I really don't think it is a problem where it is. Yomanganitalk 13:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is not that you added a link but that you provided background on how we know hippos and giraffes were unknown in Rome. To be consistent throughout the article you'll have to provide the same kind of info on all other topics. For instance, how do we know matches between different creatures were common? --Victor12 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, those need topics articles writing on them. I would have linked them if I'd been able to find anything appropriate. Yomanganitalk 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But I'm not sure if you need that much background on what seems like a minor issue. If you do need it, then you'll also need some background on other statements. For instance Animal entertainments formed a central part of the games and normally took place in the morning would need some background and facts about the use of animals in Rome; matches between different creatures were common would need some background on those kind of matches in Roman times and how we know they were common; to mention just two cases. --Victor12 12:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I was writing a summary of the article that approach would be lovely. Personally, if I'm told that they were rarely seen, I'd like some background on how we know that. This gives links to other articles that might fill in those details while giving some context in the article. Yomanganitalk 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is whether all this info is relevant for the current article. For instance, is it really necessary to mention the arrival of the Medici giraffe in 1486? As you said the relevant fact for the article is that hippos and giraffes were enough of a novelty that their absence from the record suggests they weren't present. Does that need to be explained in two really long sentences? What about just putting "Hippos and giraffes were rarely seen in Rome thus their absence from historical records suggest they weren't present at Titus' games" or something like that. Surely you can add one citation to support the rareness of such animals in Ancient Rome. --Victor12 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On a related note, prose needs to be improved. There are a lot of really long sentences which try to cram too much info. An example of this is To dedicate the massive building and the adjacent, hastily constructed baths which bore his name, and probably in an attempt to mollify both the Roman public and the gods, Titus held lavish games which lasted for more than a hundred daysin the "Reign of Titus" section. It might be a good idea to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for guidance on how to improve the article's prose --Victor12 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you actually have trouble following that sentence? Tony has some good points and can always be relied on for suggestions on how to improve the prose in articles (he's helped me out of some writing cul-de-sacs on occasion) but, in my opinion, slavishly applying his guidelines as rules can lead to stilted, overly dry prose. Yomanganitalk 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for this one, as a general rule, one sentence paragraphs are rarely an example of good prose. In this case it seems to me this paragraph should be merged with the preceding one as it completes one main point: "Titus reign had endured a series of disasters thus, held lavish games on ocassion of the inauguration of the amphitheatre". As for the length of the sentence, the problem is it crams to many ideas:
- To dedicate the amphitheatre and the baths, Titus held lavish games
- The baths were hastily built and bore Titus name
- The games were probably an attempt to mollify both the Roman public and the gods
- The games lasted for more than a hundred days
- As you can see that's four important ideas crammed into a single sentence. Why not divide this fragment into separate sentences? --Victor12 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Take crammed into and replace with covered succinctly in and you have my counter-argument. I don't mind changing it. If you can suggest a way of reformulating that paragraph without making it disjointed I'd be happy to accept an alternative, but rearranging bullet points as prose doesn't really work for me. You got all four points from the sentence; I'm sure other readers will be able to do the same. I was going to include the fact that the baths were named after Titus in the preceding section, but it was more awkward there and made a later link to thermae a bit extraneous. I also disagree that it is a continuation of the previous paragraph: the games were held to dedicate the arena and baths, not merely because there had been disasters, and separating these two sections helps with readability too. Yomanganitalk 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one question then, why do all these ideas need to be covered succinctly in the same sentence? It doesn't seem to help readability. --Victor12 12:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it impedes readability, but, as I said, if you can reformulate it in a way that assists with the readability, I'll be quite happy for it to be replaced. I can't think of a way to do it without making it stilted. Yomanganitalk 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll try to give it a go later. --Victor12 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it impedes readability, but, as I said, if you can reformulate it in a way that assists with the readability, I'll be quite happy for it to be replaced. I can't think of a way to do it without making it stilted. Yomanganitalk 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one question then, why do all these ideas need to be covered succinctly in the same sentence? It doesn't seem to help readability. --Victor12 12:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Take crammed into and replace with covered succinctly in and you have my counter-argument. I don't mind changing it. If you can suggest a way of reformulating that paragraph without making it disjointed I'd be happy to accept an alternative, but rearranging bullet points as prose doesn't really work for me. You got all four points from the sentence; I'm sure other readers will be able to do the same. I was going to include the fact that the baths were named after Titus in the preceding section, but it was more awkward there and made a later link to thermae a bit extraneous. I also disagree that it is a continuation of the previous paragraph: the games were held to dedicate the arena and baths, not merely because there had been disasters, and separating these two sections helps with readability too. Yomanganitalk 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for this one, as a general rule, one sentence paragraphs are rarely an example of good prose. In this case it seems to me this paragraph should be merged with the preceding one as it completes one main point: "Titus reign had endured a series of disasters thus, held lavish games on ocassion of the inauguration of the amphitheatre". As for the length of the sentence, the problem is it crams to many ideas:
- Sorry for my delay in answering. Now that I have some time, I've started editing the article. I began with the single-sentence paragraph but then decided to edit the whole "Background" section. I've removed most of the info not directly related to the games, for instance, details about the construction of the Colosseum, which are already given on the Colosseum article. The same goes for the towns destroyed by Mount Vesuvius, which is not that relevant and already detailed in the respective article. After this cuts, I decided to split the section into Background (including construction and why Titus decided to held such a big game) and Sources which seems like a separate subject to me. I'll try to go over the rest of the article today, or maybe tomorrow. --Victor12 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead needs urgent work. As it is, it fails to provide a concise overview of the article as required by WP:LEAD. Currently, it only summarizes the sections on background and sources --Victor12 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We obviously differ on our opinions about what the role of the background section is. As far as I'm concerned it should be to allow the reader to look at the article from an informed viewpoint without having to look at other articles and filter out what is important for their reading of this article. I don't see duplicating small amounts of information between articles as a problem ( if that is proscribed then the whole of the background section should be removed). The sources section is background just as the building of the Colosseum is and just as the reign of Titus is, as it isn't detailing the topic itself. Removing what you removed helps the reader to miss the point about why it is likely Titus was mollifying the public and gods. If we don't know that Vespasian was reclaiming the land for Rome, don't know that it wasn't just a run of the mill eruption of Vesuvius, don't know that the Temple of Jupiter restored by Vespasian was destroyed in the fire etc. then it is more difficult to understand why placating the gods and people might be an element in the lavishness of the games. Your attempt at rewording the single-sentence paragraph removed the dedication as an end itself. I've reworded it again, removing one of the points to an earlier sentence. I do agree the lead needed work though and have bulked it up a little. Yomanganitalk 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I agree so I'll just sum up my views on this article here.
- As you said, placating the gods and people of Rome as a motivation for the game is an important idea so maybe it should be mentioned in the lead.
- Regarding the layout of the article, in my opinion, "Sources" should be a separate section, not under "Background" because why the games were held and how do we know about them are quite different topics.
- Also in this section, it seems to be there's too much detail on the construction of the Colosseum. Also, do we need to know all the cities destroyed by the Vesuvius? Mentioning Pompeii seems enough to identify which eruption this refers to.
- It seems to me prose needs to be improved. As it stands now there are several instances of pretty long sentences and a single-sentence paragraph under "Reign of Titus". An example of this is On the last day of the games, Titus wept openly, and, according to Dio, the next day, after officially dedicating the amphitheatre and the baths that had been built next to it, he died in the "Later events" section. It could easily be split in two sentences. Also, is it necessary to remark that "the baths" refers to the ones "that had been built next to it"? It seems clear which baths the paragraph is talking about as it has already been explained in the "Background" section.
- There is some overlinking in the article. In the "Animal entertainments" section, common words are linked such as elephant, lion and camel. I think this kind of words should be delinked per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context.
- In this section, I think prose goes into excessive detail, for instance, by mentioning the 1486 Medici giraffe. That's IMHO and we need more opinions on this as we are currently on a deadlock over this point.
- Also in this section, in the sentences when it was supposed to fight, it had calmed down. Obviously intended to face a company of men armed with spears and a host of other animals, it seems to me the word "Obviously" is out of place and should be removed.
- Overall, I think the article is a great start towards being a FA but it still needs a thorough copyedit to improve its prose. --Victor12 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your first point and added it to the lead. No comment on your second point. On your third point, the list of cities seems appropriate but I question the use of the Vesuvius image (why is an image of this required?). On your sixth point, it seems ok to me. On your fourth, fifth, and seventh points I've done what I can. I hope this helped. --maclean 05:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Interesting read, great article. --maclean 05:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.