Having already taken this article to GA status, I think it would be a good candidate for FAC. There is currently only a handful of Morocco-related FAs and I think this one would be a good addition to the collection, especially given the importance of Volubilis as a World Heritage Site. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on images: I see you're trying to do three images next to each other. On my wife's netbook (1024*600 pixels) this results in two rows of images and lots of whitespace. File:Volubilis panorama cropped.jpg is also at the absolute maximum on such a system as well. Since this kind of resolution is still fairly common, you may want to refactor the images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded abbreviations of inscription. What is the usual way to handle this? Maybe there should be a footnote with the actual text, or the expansions could be indicated in parentheses. A curiosity - Aurelius is spelt "Avrellio" in the Latin - is the double L a Roman typo? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a standard format. The original text, which is given in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, can be seen in the file description for File:Volubilis Triumphal Arch.jpg. As you can see, it's not at all easy to read and for that reason I took the decision to expand the inscription fully rather than sprinkling it with parentheses for expansions and restored text. The double L is indeed a Roman typo - not easy to fix if you're carving in stone! Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Around 280 AD" Please check throughout the article.
See WP:ERA: "Do not use CE or AD unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it." I've used AD the first time I referred to an AD date. All dates thereafter are AD dates, so there should be no ambiguity. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" centuries after it was lost to Rome had relinquished control of it. By the time the Arabs had arrived in 708, they found the city"
I don't think "relinquished control" really works - it makes it sound like the Romans voluntarily surrendered the city, which they plainly didn't. I've changed this wording to "after the end of Roman control". I've made the other suggested change. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"fled to Morocco after escaping from Syria following " → "escaped to Morocco from Syria following "
Mostly looking at reference formatting in this pass:
Everyone's favorite FAC complaint: you've got the wrong little horizontal lines for date ranges throughout the Bibliography (I think they're okay in the Footnotes). They should be en-dashes (–).
You usually, but do not always, include publisher location for books. Sometimes that's actually unavailable, but need to check Carrasco, Fentress, Halsall, and Wright refs.
I've added a publisher location for Carrasco, Fentress is unnecessary now (see below) and in the cases of Halsall and Wright it was, I thought, unnecessary to give the location given that they are university presses (Cambridge and Chicago). In previous FACs I've been advised that I don't need to add locations in the case of university presses. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If FAC practice is that university presses don't require locations, far be it for me to argue. After all, I wimp out on location issues in my own articles by just declining to provide them! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the standard is, but I don't usually see UK locations with their county cited, as you have in the Davies ref. Perhaps that should just read "Chalfont St Peter, UK" instead? I tend to omit publication locations in my articles, so someone else may want to chime in here.
Something is broken in your template for the Fentress reference. Also, that work is OCLC 792763664.
I've taken it out - I can't find any references to it in the article. I suspect I probably included something that was referenced to it and later removed it, but forgot to take out the bibliography reference as well. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not strictly required, but if there's an original publication date for the Grimal work you cite in translation, that could be included (I'm not able to determine it, as I do not have access to the source at the moment, and the Grimal work went through many editions in French between 1954–2001).
Did you reference the original 1889 publication for the Harris work? If so, it's OCLC 249376810. If you're working from the 2011 reprint (ISBN9781848855731), the reference should reflect that.
I'm not sure the correct OCLC for the Windus source. I assume you're working off the digital copy, which is OCLC 642363595, but the big concern here is that WorldCat doesn't seem to agree with you about the publisher or publication location, so either my OCLC number is wrong, or you've got an error in this entry.
Nope, I'm working off an original hard copy. The publisher and publication location are as given on the frontispiece and in the British Library catalogue. This is most likely a case of WorldCat being wrong, or at least of them having incomplete information about this book. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WorldCat's listings for this were a mess to wade through. Doesn't help that it was apparently nearly simultaneously printed in three countries, but I finally found the entry that matches your material. OCLC 64409967. Sorry for my initially sloppy checking there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's the www.sitedevolubilis.org site. For one thing, you call one of the pages "House of the Knight" in the Footnotes, but "House of the Cavalier" in the References.But more importantly, why is this a reliable source? It's a very nice-looking resource, but it appears to be a product of Andante Travels, so I could use a little convincing as to its reliability.
It's sponsored by Andante but not authored by them, quite clearly; see the credits page at [3], which indicates that the authors are professional archaeologists and conservation officials. UCL is University College, London and INSAP is the Moroccan government's Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine. It's the official website of the archaeological site - I found out about the website when I was out there. As for the naming, this is a bit of confusion (not on my part) between English and French. The English-language sources use "House of the Knight" pretty much universally. The inscription at the site itself is only in French and refers to the "Maison du Chevalier". The website has rather unhappily split the difference and translated "Chevalier" as "Knight", in contrast to the more conventional English name. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That's the little convincing I needed. Objections to the site's reliability withdrawn. As for the Knight/Chevalier thing, my biggest concern is that Footnote 48 doesn't match its parent Reference. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have several pretty solid print sources here, but I can't help but notice the lack of any scholarly journal coverage for what's a fairly significant regional archaeological site. A quicky perusal of literature gets me sources in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology and the Journal of Cultural Heritage. Is there any material there which the books cited do not yet cover?
I looked, but the sources I found were very specialised, focusing on very small-scale or specialised topics - not very useful for an article that is intended to be a general overview. 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree the major journal sources are fairly specific and technical. That said, one of those sources (Daniels, Robert (1995). "Punic Influence in the Domestic Architecture of Roman Volubilis (Morocco)". Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 14 (1): 79–95. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.1995.tb00057.x.) seems to have some comments about the style of the local architecture that might be worthwhile. I'll agree that there's not much to do with the analysis of the origins of the marbles used in the site's construction (Antonelli, Fabrizio; Lazzarini, Lorenzo; Cancelliere, Stefano; Dessandier, David (2009). "Volubilis (Meknes, Morocco): Archaeometric study of the white and coloured marbles imported in the Roman age". Journal of Cultural Heritage. 10 (1): 116–123. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2008.04.006. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)) unless you feel that it's worth remarking on from how far away the Romans shipped stone to build the place. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at both, but to be honest I didn't think there was much worth including. I note your point about Romans shipping stone long distances but this isn't unique to Volubilis - it's certainly a testament to the scale of the Roman trading network but by no means something which is so exceptional that it deserves a special mention, in my opinion. Prioryman (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably fair. Although, mostly just being contrary here... you do cite UNESCO to note that other buildings are made of local limestone; that might be an interesting contrast. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference formatting is in a much better place now, and I've had a chance to look at some of the rest of the article:
Overlinking. There is some. Morocco and Meknes are each linked twice in the lead. In the body, duplicate links (and there location) include: Meknes (After the Romans), French Morocco (Excavation, restoration and UNESCO listing, 2nd appearance, "The first excavations..."), Idris I (Excavation, restoration and UNESCO listing), basilica (Public buildings), Baal (Public buildings), triumphal arch (Triumphal arch), Julia Domna (translation). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably some underlinking, too. Punic needs linked to something at first appearance, at least. Although, frankly, "Punic god" might link to Religion in Carthage (the redirect target of Punic religion), leaving the second appearance of the word to link to Punics. Sidi Moussa, Morocco has an article; I'm not certain if the other modern hamlets deserve redlinks (if so, Sidi Said will have to be disambiguated in some manner). Tocolosida probably deserves a redlink. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might consider only including the arch translation in the article body, and providing a footnote with the Latin text; for most readers, that's a big block of Latin to encounter in text. Also, is there a source you're citing for that text, and especially for the translation (if you didn't do it yourself, in which case, that's fine). Stylistically, I'm not sure the blockquotes should be bolded like that. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The usual style does seem to be to include the original text (in bold) and the translation in the article body. See e.g. Pyramid of Cestius, Piraeus Lion and Hällestad Runestones, to give a few random examples. I've not found examples of the original text being relegated to a footnote. The Latin text is just a transcription of the inscription and is additionally recorded in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. I'm not aware of there being an "official" English translation; the one in this article was a group effort by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, aided by the fact that most of the inscription is a set of stock titles and formulae which are well-known from other inscriptions. Large parts of it are virtually identical to an inscription dedicated to the same emperor in 216, a year before the arch inscription, in Bremenium in Northumberland (for which I do have a published English translation). Prioryman (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have done it this way if I was writing the article, I don't think. But, hey, clearly, other articles have formatted similar things in this way and met with consensus approval. So, I've got no actionable objection here! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of bold, the Houses and palaces section starts bolding structure names, which the article didn't do previously. That's probably not MOS-compliant, but more importantly, it makes that section look as though it were written separately. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can't find anything that I'd consider a fatal barrier to promotion at this point, and all my significant concerns have been long since addressed. I'm sorry that I didn't get back to this sooner to make note of that, in fact. But, in the proud tradition of finding silly little things at FAC:
From Notable buildings: "58 oil-pressing complexes have so far been discovered in Volubilis." From WP:MOSNUM: "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark; it is often better to recast the sentence than to simply change format, which may produce other problems..." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the late 8th century the Idrisid dynasty, traditionally seen as the founders of Morocco, was founded there. - this reads a little clumsy with the switch between singular "dynasty" and plural "founders". Perhaps "traditionally seen as the dynasty that founded Morocco" or something similar?Simon Burchell (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Volubilis remained the capital of the region but by the 8th century, Islam had taken hold - I'm not the best for perfect grammar but the comma here seems odd to me. I think it needs another: "Volubilis remained the capital of the region but, by the 8th century, Islam had taken hold", or dropping altogether.Simon Burchell (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The role of Walter Harris needs to be clarified, the article doesn't even mention his nationality, and his name should be redlinked to an appropriate target.Simon Burchell (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an inconsistency in the use of italics. For example Institut des Hautes Etudes Marocaines is italicised but『Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine』is not - there may be more instances in the article. You should choose one or the other and stick with it.Simon Burchell (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm linking various terms throughout - you might want to double-check them, on the whole I'm linking to Roman subjects and in one or two cases it might not be correct to do so.Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made all of the above changes. The article is supposed to use British English; I've corrected the erroneous inclusion of "sidewalk". Prioryman (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the 2nd para, from Olive oil was central to the life of the city... would be better moved into a separate section, perhaps called Commerce, and moved much earlier in the article. I had been wondering about trade routes, commerce etc. long before getting this far - and these details don't sit comfortably under "notable buildings.Simon Burchell (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair point. I've moved this para to the previous section to sit alongside the content on infrastructure, as I think the city's olive mills and shops would count as part of its commercial infrastructure. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are various places throughout the article where cite notes crop up mid-sentence, interrupting reading flow. Ideally these should be moved after punctuation.Simon Burchell (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that wouldn't be consistent with WP:INTEGRITY; keeping the citation close to the fact it supports makes it clearer which facts are being cited to which source. At any rate, this is how I've done it for other FAs and it's not been an issue there. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this section, the convert templates are producing abbreviated units. Earlier in the article, full units were spelled out. Try to be consistent and either abbreviate or not throughout.Simon Burchell (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've abbreviated the units of length but left area units spelled out, as the abbreviations for acres and hectares aren't quite as familiar as km and mi, I think. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst you are right that these units may not be as familiar, I'm not really convinced that it is necessary to spell them out when the other units aren't. However, this is a minor nitpick and I'll not force the point. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's usually treated as a loanword in English (like fungus or tibia, I suppose). The convention in all of the works I've consulted has been to not italicise it, so I've followed the same convention. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been built on top of or converted from an earlier Punic temple, possibly dedicated to Baal. needs additional punctuation. Perhaps "It appears to have been built on top of, or converted from, an earlier Punic temple; this may have been dedicated to Baal."Simon Burchell (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
