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.
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.
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".
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).
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).
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].
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.
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.