Wikipedia

Talk:Arch of the Philaeni/GA1

< Talk:Arch of the Philaeni
(Redirected from Talk:Marble Arch (Libya)/GA1)
Latest comment: 10 months ago by Grnrchst in topic GA review

GA review

edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago82 comments2 people in discussion
PASSED
Issues with prose, verifiability, broadness, neutrality and stability have all been resolved, bringing the article up to GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2025 (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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Meluiel (talk · contribs) 17:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply


I've been reading more on Italian colonialism in Africa lately, and I've already familiarised myself with Gaddafi's period in power, so I'm very intrigued to see how this piece of architecture played a role in that. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Comments

Legend of the Philaeni brothers

  • First sentence could be condensed slightly for readability. Just as an example: "feuded over territorial and commercial rights, and sought to define the border between them" This could be condensed to "feuded over territory and sought to define the border between them." It's the territory specifically that's directly relevant to this story, so no need to mention the commercial feud (although I'm sure that would be relevant in the respective articles about Cyrene and Carthage).
  • I think the story about the brothers could perhaps be trimmed down a bit for concision. It's obviously relevant to the article, but it's worth a look to see if there's any bits that could be condensed. In particular, I think the sentences starting with "Two teams of runners would depart" and "When they did meet,", and the sentences starting with "Defeated," and "The brothers agree", could respectively be merged and condensed.
  • The tenses used in this section are inconsistent, bouncing between past and present tenses. As an example: "the Cyrenaeans accused the Carthaginians of cheating" (past tense) is followed by "The brothers agree to sacrifice" (present tense). The tenses should be standardised.
  • Spotcheck: "The supposed location of the altars," Verified in St. John 2011.

Italian colonization

  • Wright 2022, pp. 25–32 and Vandewalle 2012, pp. 24–30 are using very broad page ranges. Using more citations with narrower page ranges would aid in verification. Just as an example, in Vandewalle, the first sentence here is verified by pages 24–25, and the second sentence is verified in pages 25–27.
  • "However, internal conflicts" I don't think the however is necessary here. You could start with "Internal conflicts"
  • "Tripolitanian notables" "Notables" is a bit vague. Given what the cited sources say, I think you could be more explicit and link to the Tripolitanian Republic here.
    • I've used notables here as it's the term Anderson 1986 uses (p. 198) and disputes occured both before the Republic was formed and after it had collapsed. Have reworded thanks to the liberty that "particularly" provides. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "had seriously destabilized" -> "seriously destabilized".
  • Spotcheck: "internal conflicts [...]" Verified in Vandewalle 2012, pp. 27–30.
  • "and wartime competition between the Ottoman, Italian, and British empires" Think it could be worth trimming out the British empire; obviously it's relevant to the conflict in the wider region, but what's specifically relevant to this article is the Ottoman and Italian empires.
    • I do agree that they're less relevant to this article in particular. I did include them originally as they're pretty important for Italy's continued occupation (as a result of the success of the Senussi campaign), the relations between Italy and the Senussi, and an eventual link to the Libyan independence process — and it's only two extra words. I have removed them from the article though. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "From 1922, Italy, predominantly under the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini" Predominantly? It was only under the fascist government from 1922 and it was Mussolini who started the war. You could just say "From 1922, Italy, under the Fascist government [...]"}}
    • Because the war started on 26 January 1922 with Giuseppe Volpi's landing in Misrata under a liberal government, while Mussolini only came to power in October 1922. See for example Wright 2022, p. 32 ("By the time Benito Mussolini came to power in Rome in October 1922, the reconquest of northern Tripolitania was well under way, Volpi having in effect anticipated Fascist colonial policy by some ten months."). It's annoying but I think "predominantly" is the most accurate. And if you're wondering: yes, our main article on the war is in a terrible shape — that's my next project. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Ah ok, thanks for clarifying. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "to fully occupy the colony; the war," Start a new sentence instead of using a semicolon.
  • "waged the Second Italo-Senussi War to fully occupy the colony" I think, because the first Italo-Senussi War hasn't been mentioned, it might be worth referring to it by its other name. Something like "waged a war for the pacification of Libya" or "waged a war to pacify Libya".
  • Spotcheck: ""From 1922, Italy, [...]" Verified in Vandewalle 2012, pp. 29–32, although Vandewalle says the war ended with the execution of Omar al-Mukhtar in 1931. Think "in 1932" should either be changed to "in 1931" or "by 1932".
    • Serious organised resistance ended in 1931 with al-Mukhtar's execution, though sporadic fighting did continue. I've reworked the sentence, hopefully it's a bit clearer, though let me know if further changes are required. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "escalating brutality against the civilian population" Brutality by whom against the civilian population?
  • "a significant achievement, a symbol of the colony's unification, and served economic, cultural, and especially military objectives" According to whom? Is this based on historical analysis or contemporary observations?
    • Have tried to make clearer the separation between modern analysis (significant achievement (supported by cited Wright passage, as well as Parfitt 2018, p. 510), unification (supported by cited Segrè passage)) and contemporary justifications. If you think it needs to be more explicit let me know — would using refn with quotations from the modern sources be useful? Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Now that the Roman roadbuilding clause is removed, I think it scans a bit better. Happy to make further changes/tweaks as required. Meluiel (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      • @Meluiel: To suggest one final change, I think changing "was a significant achievement" to "was seen as a significant achievement" would assuage any lingering doubts about neutrality. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
        Hmm, not totally convinced about the tenses here — as we're talking about modern historical analysis, I think was gives the wrong impression (that it was perhaps only regarded as a significant achievement in its time). Maybe "Justified by contemporaries as a symbol of the colony's unification in service of economic, cultural, and especially military objectives, the completion of the highway, particularly the section through the harsh Sirte desert, is seen by modern historians, such as John Wright and Rose Parfitt, as one of Fascist Italy's most significant achievements."? Really not sure. Meluiel (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
        Would be good to break this up. Something like: "The highway's construction was justified by contemporaries as a symbol of the colony's unification in service of economic, cultural, and especially military objectives. The completion of the highway, particularly the section through the harsh Sirte desert, is seen by modern historians, such as John Wright and Rose Parfitt, as one of Fascist Italy's most significant achievements." --Grnrchst (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
        Perfect, have made the change. Meluiel (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • The sentences starting with "These projects included construction", "It was the first road" and "Motivated by the international outcry" could be trimmed down a bit for concision. We don't need all of this detail, just the most relevant parts.
  • "It also represented [...]" I think this is a good example of detail that could be cut. This is clearly relevant to the article on the road itself, but maybe not for this one.
    • I wanted to include this because of the connection to Rome in order to better show that ideological through-line relevant to both the road and the arch. Have condensed and shunted into previous sentence. If it's still too messy I'm happy to just scrap the whole thing. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The arch

  • This section could probably do with one or two more subsection headers, just to categorise each part of it a bit clearer.
    This is good! --Grnrchst (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "In order to celebrate" -> "To celebrate"
  • Spotcheck: Verified in Hom 2012, pp. 291–292.
  • Might be worth linking to Palingenesis for "rebirth".
  • "was some 30 km (19 mi) west of the ancient Carthaginian altars" You say earlier that this was the "supposed location". Might be worth clarifying this here. Also, are the ancient altars still around? Because this sentence might imply they still exist if read a certain way.
  • Spotcheck: "one of the most prominent figures in Italian colonial architecture" Verified in Anderson 2010, p. 1.
  • Spotcheck: "used the fusion of Italian and local vernacular architecture" Verified in Anderson 2010, pp. 3, 8–11 and Parfitt 2018, pp. 516–517.
  • Three citations is on the boundary of excessive inline citations. It's not necessary for GA, so feel free to ignore, but I'd recommend bundling some of these into sfnm formatting for easier readability.
  • Re: Bronze statues of the Philaeni brothers, 2014. Is this photograph ok for publication? I ask because Libya apparently does not have freedom of panorama.
    • I think so, though I confess copyright law is a tad confusing. According to C:COM:GVT Italy, "works created by or on behalf of [...] the former National Fascist Party [...] have 20 years of duration of the rights", which includes buildings commissioned by the Italian state — so the arch would go into PD in 1957 and thus photos taken afterwards would not be derivative works affected by FOP. I believe that Italy would be the copyright holder in this case, but applying Libyan law (C:COM:LIBYA) the absolute latest it could go into PD is 1990 (25 years after the death of Di Fausto). All of these dates are prior to the URAA restoration date of 1996 and so should be in PD in the US as well. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Spotcheck: "The arch, which straddled the Litoranea [...]" Verified in Parfitt 2018, p. 517 (not sure why the citation says page 9).
  • Spotcheck: "Egyptian, Hellenistic, and Phoenician motifs" Hrm, can't seem to find this in Parfitt 2018, pp. 516-517.
    • "However, as the choice of the legend of the Phileni twins indicates, no less than the eclectic mix of Roman, Pharonic, Phoenician and Hellenistic elements that went into the Arch's design, fascist imperialism in Italy claimed not only the legacy of the Roman Empire as its patrimony, but actually the whole of antiquity." Parfitt 2018, p. 516. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "the founder of the Roman Empire and inaugurator of the Pax Romana" Trim the latter.
    • Reworded to make a bit more obvious why it's included (the parallel of a Pax Fascista in Libya). If it's still excessive I can revert to the original wording and simply cut it as you suggested. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "the bimillennium of whose birth was widely celebrated in Fascist Italy" Is this relevant to this article?
  • "other projects to co-opt his image" Is this relevant to this article? This and the above quote read as tangential.
  • "a gift given to the people of Libya and the world under the auspices of a Roman Empire reborn by Fascism" Hrm, might be worth tweaking a little to ensure this doesn't read like we're saying this in wikivoice.
    • Honestly I'm not sure how to do this, though I do recognise that it's a potential problem. The simplest fix would just be to blockquote the inscriptions and allow the reader to interpret them, but they're pretty long, especially if the original Latin is included — hence why I summarised them instead. Do you have any suggestions? Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "Contemporary Fascist interpretations" Could we specify by whom?
  • "New Fascist Men" Worth linking to New Man (utopian concept)#Fascist
  • "made to assuage the fears of the great powers over Italian warmongering," Could you clarify this? How was the trip meant to assuage these fears? What warmongering were the other powers afraid of?
    • There's not much detail in the sources beyond Mussolini declaring that Italy was a "satisfied power" and did not intend any further expansionism. Hopefully changed sentence is more informative. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I think the sentence about Mussolini's visit could be trimmed slightly, but I'm not sure where.
    • It's pretty unwieldy, for sure, especially after the changes made for the previous bullet point. I'm also not sure if there are any extraneous details, but I've split it up into two sentences to hopefully help with readability. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "an attending journalist" Do we know their name?
  • Spotcheck: "As one of Libya's most prominent tourist attractions [...]" Verified in Hom 2012, pp. 292–293.

Later history

  • "The road was renamed after the death of Italo Balbo to the Balbia; he was accidentally killed on 28 June 1940 by friendly anti-aircraft fire while flying above Tobruk.[45] " This explanatory footnote strikes me as something that should be in the article about the road, but is overcontextualising for this article, so I'd recommend cutting it.
    • I originally included this to help with further reading, as sources call the road all manner of names, including just the Balbia, but it's definitely excessive. Removed. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "sent directly to Cyrenaica; the watch at the" start a new sentence rather than using a semicolon.
  • I'm not so sure about the need to cite primary sources from Bill Kennedy Shaw and William George Stevens, when the rest of the article is based on contemporary, scholarly sources. Does the information here rely on them being cited?
    • The Kennedy Shaw citation is just for the end date of the road watch on 15 November, and have no reason to doubt it (it's described in the Libyan Studies journal as a "classic account" ). For W. G. Stevens' official history, there's this discussion on the WP:MILHIST project page from 2014 affirming that the series is reliable. I definitely share your discomfort in relying on primary sources here, but I don't think either of them fall foul of WP:PRIMARY. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • License check: "British troops at the arch, December 1942" all good.
  • "Sources vary on the year of demolition" Could we provide some and cite these sources? It'd be helpful for the reader to know the specific years mentioned, even if which one is correct is disputes.
  • Is there any more information that can be provided about the demolition? This section seems to be rather short and undetailed, relative to the rest of the article.
    • Unfortunately none that I can find, and the citation trial has run dry. Perhaps some exists in Arabic, but the arch's generic name in that language makes searching very difficult. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "as of 2024" Citing two sources from 2009 and 2014 after saying this reads a bit odd. I think this sentence could be broken up into "The bas-reliefs and bronze statues were removed to a museum at Madina Sultan, near Sirte. They remain there, as of 2024, in poor condition." and citations moved inline with the specific sentences they verify.
    • My contention was that Hom 2012, p. 293 is quite explicit on their condition ("dilapidated bronze statues and fragments of its bas-relief. These lie abandoned [...]"), whereas Agbamu 2024, p. 237 is less clear ("they lie half-concealed by the growing vegetation [...] two colossal, twisted bronze figures, forgotten") — hence why I've opted to cite multiple sources to support the phrasing. I guess it's on the edge of WP:SYNTH but hopefully you can see the thought process. Have made the change as suggested, though. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lead and infobox

  • License check: "Arch of the Philaeni in March 1937" seems all good. Would be good to know who the photographer was, but it's not necessary to prove its PD status as we know its publication date.
    • Unfortunately in the copies that I've seen, L'Illustrazione Italiana generally only credited its photographers in a list at the start of each edition rather than per photograph. Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm wondering about the title. Is "Marble Arch" more commonly used than "Arch of the Philaeni"? I see this was the subject of a move dispute last month.
    • As the person who initiated the RM, I'm not sure it would be fair to rehash my entire argument here as well. Nevertheless: by my reckoning "Marble Arch" is pretty much only used in the Allied/WW2 milhist context, with all other sources preferring some linguistic variation on "Arch of the Philaeni", thus the current title fails COMMONNAME as well as the preference for avoiding parenthetical disambiguation. As the RM discussion developed I wasn't sure how exactly to apply the WP:UE and WP:GNUE rules for proposing a suitable move target, so opted to just let things fizzle out. If you have any thoughts it would be great to hear them, as I'll probably try another RM in the near-ish future :) Meluiel (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • This is a very unfortunate situation. I've raised it on the GAN talk page to see if other people can help figure out how to handle this. I definitely agree with you that the common name should be Arch of the Philaeni, but I want to be careful about approaching this because stability is a key GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • I have opened a new move discussion, and while waiting to achieve consensus on the issue, I've procedurally put the review on hold. (This is nothing to worry about, it's just a way to mark it to allow more time) --Grnrchst (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "the main east-west route used by the armies of the Western Desert campaign" Which armies? A little more specificity would be helpful.
  • "It was eventually demolished by Muammar Gaddafi, ruler of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in the early 1970s." In the early 1970s, the state was called the Libyan Arab Republic; it didn't become the Jamahiriya until 1977.
  • Someone at the GAN project brought up that the naming issue is unclear in the lead. It would be helpful to the reader for them to understand the context of the two names, when they were called that and by whom. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    A few cases where the prose could be clearer or more concise. Spelling and grammar is all good.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Only one word to watch; all else is good on the manual of style front.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    All references are well-presented.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    Cases where more citations with narrower page ranges would aid verification. Not sure about the use of primary sources in the last section, but happy to keep them if they're the best source for this information.
    C. It contains no original research:
    No original research as far as I can see, everything is properly sourced.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No copyright violations or plagiarism spotted in the spotchecks. Summary style is well-utilised by the author.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    If more information exists on the demolition, it would be nice to know.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    A couple cases where the article goes into unnecessary detail about tangential topics.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    One minor case where it's not entirely clear whether a description is being cited or if we're describing in wikivoice. Otherwise, all good on the neutrality front.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Seems like there are quite a few reverts in June that may compromise the article's stability. Can the nominator confirm these disputes have been resolved?
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Historical images and the map are properly licensed; I'm curious about whether publication of the statues is okay given Libya's restrictions on freedom of panorama.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    All images are relevant to the topic, depicting the monument and the historical context.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This was a well-written and informative article, and I feel like I learned a lot by reading it. There are some issues that are still keeping it from meeting GA criteria, but I think this could easily pass each of them with a few changes. Ping me when you have addressed these comments and/or if you have any questions. Nice work on this! --Grnrchst (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Grnrchst Thanks for undertaking this review and for being so thorough, it's much appreciated! I've made an edit to address the comments raised and have given input above.
One extra thing I'd like to bring up is the formatting of the two inscription blockquotes: do you think that it's right to have the Horace quote include attribution (author and source text) in the indent, whereas the later translated Arabic one by al-Mahdawi doesn't? Wasn't sure how to best do it while having the authors' names in prose. Thanks again. Meluiel (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Meluiel: Thank you for the prompt and thorough response! I have left some follow-up comments here and there, so do give some of those a look when you can. I don't think you need to attribute Horace inside the blockquote, as he's already mentioned in the sentence introducing it. You can go ahead and remove Horace's signature from the blockquote, I think that'd be fine. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Grnrchst Thanks for the follow-up, I've made the changes as suggested, as well as fiddling with the Horace quote. I think that's pretty much everything except for the "significant achievement" sentence and the ongoing article title question. Meluiel (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok, all my comments have been addressed and the RM discussion has now been closed, so I'm more than happy to pass this review now. Excellent work on this article! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2025 (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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arch_of_the_Philaeni/GA1&oldid=1303489310"