Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Oroscopa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hanberke (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 17 October 2021 (→‎Punic wars template: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleBattle of Oroscopa is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 8, 2021Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 12, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when surrounded at the Battle of Oroscopa Carthaginian troops killed their horses and burnt their wooden shields to cook them?
Current status: Featured article

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The C of E (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that when surrounded at the Battle of Oroscopa Carthaginian troops killed their horses and burnt their wooden shields to cook them? Goldsworthy, Adrian (2006). The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC. London: Phoenix. ISBN 978-0-304-36642-2, pp. 336–337.
  • Reviewed: Matt Brash
  • Comment: Suggestions for alternate hooks are welcome.

Created by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 16:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi Gog the Mild, review follows; article created 25 July; exceeds minimum length and is well written; article is cited inline throughout to reliable sources; sourcing is almost netirely offline but more than happy to to AGF that there is no overclose paraphrasing of them; hook fact is more than interesting enough, mentioned in the article and cited inline; a QPQ has been carried out; no problems here - Dumelow (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B class review

B class. I added this battle to the Third Punic War infobox. Djmaschek (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Oroscopa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 19:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges, Cough! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Gog the Mild I totally forgot I had taken this up; will finish it up as soon as I can. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

  • 1
    1.a checkY
    1.b checkY
  • 2
    2.a checkY
    2.b checkY
    2.c checkY
    2.d checkY
  • 3
    3.a checkY
    3.b checkY
  • 4
    4.a checkY
  • 5
    5.a checkY
  • 6
    6.a checkY
    6.b checkY
  • No DAB links checkY
  • No dead links checkY
  • No missing citations checkY

Discussion

Prose Suggestions

Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.

Lede

  • Tunisia and resulted in a heavy Carthaginian defeat "heavy defeat" seems somewhat weird (to me, at least) suggest Tunisia and resulted in a decisive Carthaginian loss, or else Tunisia and resulted in defeat for the Carthaginians, with heavy losses.
Really? Split into two sentences.
  • , the treaty notwithstanding suggest in violation of the treaty
I am guessing that you are having issues with "notwithstanding"? How would you feel about 'regardless of the treaty'?
Sounds good to me.
Done.
  • where foraging for food was poor and suggest with limited access to food
I am not actually certain that is the case from the sources. Although I may be dithering over a semantic quibble. How strongly do you feel about this one?
Not very, just think poor is an odd word choice for this.
It now reads "where foraging for food was difficult" per your suggestion below. That any better?
Sounds good to me.

Background

  • Africanus imposed I think Africanus should be Scipio, as Africanus is an Agnomen? Usage is inconsistent in his own article, however.
That gives us two characters named "Scipio Africanus". Referring to one as Africanus and the other as Scipio avoids possible confusion. And Roman and modern sources frequently, but not invariably, refer to people by their unadorned agnomens.
  • and in Africa only with Rome's express permission suggest changing to and within Africa itself only by express permission from Rome
I was about to change this (minus the "itself", what else would Africa be?) when I paused. You don't do something by permission, it's not grammatical - you do it with, or without, permission.
Fair enough.

Battle

  • the treaty notwithstanding, counter-attacked the Numidians. suggest ignoring the treaty, counter-attacked the Numidians.
Again, how would 'regardless of the treaty' suit?
Sounds good.
  • where foraging for food was poor suggest changing poor to difficult
Done, and in the lead. (Although IMO it is stretching what the sources say.)
  • with no fighting and no loot suggest with neither combat or loot
Done. (or → nor)
  • last fought him, 50 years before. suggest battled with him, 50 years before. I'm certain there was some manner of local resistance; think "battle" conveys the meaning better.
My phraseology is supported by the sources. I don't mind changing it, but "battled" sounds awful. You got another suggestion? (There may have been "local resistance, although the sources are silent, but this seems to have been the first time Masinissa took the field against the Carthaginians, which is what I am expressly stating - "fought him".
I suppose; struggling to come up with a better suggestion.
Me too, without being longwinded. I think what we have may be the least-worse option.
Indeed.

Aftermath

  • went over to Rome in 149 BC. suggest surrendered to Rome in 149 BC.
But it didn't. Again, I have no problems with changing the wording if you feel the existing is not ideal, but there was no "surrender".
What does "went over" mean in this context? To me it seemed to imply that they surrendered or defected?
That's it. Changed to "defected"
Thanks for getting back to this one Iazyges, your comments responded to above, some with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iazyges, my next round of responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No problem, sorry if some of them are somewhat off, I'm currently nursing a mild concussion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, they all seem reasonable. Which is not to say that I agree with all of them . But I see where you are coming from. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punic wars template

Why not add this template to the article? Hanberke (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Oroscopa&oldid=1050419890"