Talk:Pompeii

Approval Process: Approval notice

Call for review: Richard Nevell 20:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Approval Notice: Anthony.Sebastian 03:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Certification of Approval:

---

Please discuss the article below, Pompeii/Approval is for brief official referee's only!

Comments

Links

As I read through this, I can see that it is currently under-linked. Every topic, whether a current CZ article or not, should be linked. Russell D. Jones 17:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, the article uses direct hyperlinks to some sources (e.g., Project Gutenberg). I think it is preferable to link to those sources from the notes. It also gives you the opportunity to comment on the source in the notes. Russell D. Jones 20:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Map

I wonder if it's possible to get a map of the place to help a reader situate where Pompeii is. If the map has Cumea, Naples, Misenum, Stabiae and Herculaneum on it too, it could be used on those pages too. Russell D. Jones 20:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A map of the Bay of Naples with Pompeii, Vesuvius, and settlements mentioned in the text highlighted would be an excellent addition, the problem is finding a free one. Flickr's advanced search tool has been very useful in finding pictures with creative commons licences, but falls down when it comes to maps. Any ideas where to look? The same can be said for a plan of the town, but the bibliography does at least link to a couple of volumes on Google books with plans (the preview worked for me at least). Richard Nevell 20:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a map here--but that's just of pompeii. Russell D. Jones 21:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What about this? Does it have all the places you need? Russell D. Jones 21:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a useful looking map, and I tried uploading it (Pompeii and environs.jpg) but the aspect ratio has become distorted when uploading. I thought it might be the file format, so uploaded it a different type of file (Pompeii and environs.png) but it hasn't fixed the problem. So at the moment we've got two slightly squished plans, and at least one needs deleting. Richard Nevell 22:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this image will not work? Russell D. Jones 01:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great. It now sits at the start of the 'history' section so is fairly prominent, and replaced a fairly nondescript photo. Richard Nevell 12:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Captions

The caption to the amphitheater reads like the photo is actually of the riot. It's not, it's a photo of "The amphitheater in which a riot occurred between Roman soldiers and Campanians in 59BC." Also, it's not clear in the text that the riot was in the amphitheater which is what the caption seems to say. Russell D. Jones 20:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the caption so it's clearer and added a bit more text explaining what happened in the riot, and clarifying that gladiatorial games were banned rather than simply closing the amphitheatre (which was still used on occasion). Richard Nevell 21:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Textual criticisms

Regarding in the Vesuvius section:

"Project Gutenburg hosts a free early 20th-century translation of Pliny the Younger's letters, including his account of Vesuvius' eruption [7]. A more recent translation can be found in Cooley & Cooley, Pompeii: a sourcebook, from page 32 onward [8]

I'm not sure that the textual criticism belongs in the article text itself. It seems out of place here. The article is talking about the vesuvius eruption and starts talking about Project Gutenberg. I think the comments about the sources would be better located in the notes or in the bibliography. See above for comment about the links. Russell D. Jones 20:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point, it does disrupt the narrative. I've moved the note to the bibliography subpage for now, although that may be a bit out of the way. Richard Nevell 21:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Statistics

"This stage of activity, in which Vesuvius produced 2.6m3 of pumice," Does the article really mean "2.6 cubic meters of pumice?" If so, that doesn't seem like a lot. Russell D. Jones 20:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Woops, that should be 2.6 million cubic metres. Richard Nevell 20:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that's a lot! Russell D. Jones 20:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The Buildings

Suggestions (20:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)) from Russell D. Jones:

1. The first paragraph in this section isn't about the buildings at all. It seem like this paragraph should go earlier in the article.
2. Earlier the article talked about the city walls built against the Etruscans and the "new walls" (presumably built after the Etruscan threat). Which walls are being talked about in the "Buildings" section?
3. I'm baffled by this sentence: "The settlement was extended in stages, from the 5th century B.C. and according to Michael Grant this "provides the earliest known systemic urban layout in Italy".[27]" Grant's point is not clear to me. How can extending a city in stages (which seems to me to be haphazard) be "systematic"? Does Grant know of a central plan that our readers should know about?
4. "Though nothing stands of the first buildings" ==> "thought nothing stands of the earliest buildings." But then also be mindful of the repeated use of "early"...
5. "Pompeii offers insight into the latest building fashion" ==> "Pompeii offers insight into the building fashions of the late first century."

1. That's a fair point. When I was writing that I envisaged that it would be setting the scene for the layout of the city, but in the end it talked more about the landscape. It is now the second paragraph of the 'history' section, as I think it fits better there.
2. The "new walls" are those built against the Etruscans. It probably wasn't clear because I started talking about the damage done by Sulla and later additions. I've rearranged those sentences so it now reads: "With the threat from the Etruscans, town walls were built around Pompeii. They reflected the growth of Pompeii from a settlement covering about 14 hectares, to 66 hectares. The walls are still visible today, though with later additions and damage from by a siege in the 1st century B.C." Hopefully this is clearer.
3. I think the detail about expansion in stages muddied the waters here, so I've removed it. The point about the streets being laid out in a grid is more important.
4. I've made the change, and replaced the second "earliest" with "oldest", which I think still works in this context.
5. A point worth clarifying, and I have made the change. Richard Nevell 21:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Rediscovery and Investigation

Suggestions <20:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)> from Russell D. Jones:

1. Shouldn't this heading be "Discovery" since Pompeii was only discovered once. <Technically, it should probably "Uncovery" since Pompeii literally had its cover removed .... HA! >
2. "19763"?
3. " considered by Beard " ==> " considered by Mary Beard "
4. "The majority of archaeological in Pompeii " ==> "The majority of archaeological remains in Pompeii ..." or some other noun. "Archaeological" is an adjective--it needs a noun.
5. "... the "Old Town" (in the south-west corner of the archaeological site)..." ==> "Old Town" -- the article explained what and where this was earlier. No need to repeat it here. It seems also that the sentences following also are describing Old Town but not its "rediscovery" ; so shouldn't that information be with the earlier discussion of Old Town?
6. The last paragraph under this heading doesn't seem to be about either rediscovery or investigation, but instead is about preservation. This article needs a conclusion, and it seems like this last paragraph would do okay for a conclusion under a different heading such as "Pompeii today" or "Pompeii in the 21st century" or the "Preservation of Pompeii Today" or something like that.

1-5. I've made these changes, they're fairly minor so I won't go into detail.

6. I've put the last paragraph in its own section with the title 'Preservation'. I'm not sure if that quite covers it since the bombing in WW2 effected preservation, but I'll leave it until I think of something better. Richard Nevell 21:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh right. Maybe "Preservation" isn't the best heading here. Russell D. Jones 20:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The bombing is still in the 'discovery and investigation' section. It needs to be included somewhere of course as it effected the preservation of the site (and doesn't seem to be a particularly well known event). Richard Nevell 20:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Date

Wikipedia cites some authorities as dating the eruption in November rather than August, or maybe lasting 3 months. Have these been considered? Peter Jackson 09:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Name

Should, or indeed could, anything be said on the relation between the city's name and that of the Pompeian gens? Peter Jackson 09:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, sorry I've taken so long to get to your points. I've not been ignoring them, I was working through the comments here when I got interrupted. Grant mentions that Pompeii may derive from the word pompe meaning five in the Oscan language or may have been a personal name. I've asked someone with expertise on Pompeii if they can help and hopefully they'll be able to provide further information in the next couple of days. The same goes for the possible date of the eruption in November, which is an interesting point. Richard Nevell 20:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the person I contacted never got back to me. However, I have been able to add something on the derivation of the name Pompeii. In a nutshell, there are several plausible theories including it being from a Roman name (I didn't want to complicate things by discussing gens). I was able to find less on dating the eruption in November. In archaeological texts it seems to only be mentioned in passing (if at all). There was one source which kept cropping up as the main place this was proposed but it's in Italian. However, since the sources generally don't go into much detail I don't think there's any harm in emulating this approach. Richard Nevell 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Update

The article has changed significantly since the call for review was initiated. Alterations have mostly been fixing issues raised here and adding further detail (such as the ash from the eruption reaching as far as Africa). Hopefully these are all regarded as improvement but I thought I should bring them to reviewers' attention in case they hadn't seen how the article has changed since they first looked at it. Richard Nevell 12:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)