Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 May 2020 [1].

---

Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I bring you: an arrogant Roman general; a proud state refusing peace terms with the enemy at the gates; imported talent showing the locals how to fight; elephant charges; a Roman army going down to defeat with a higher proportion killed than at Cannae. Roll up, roll up; book your places for the review now. Worked on and polished to what I hope is a FAC-worthy state. You may well suspect otherwise, in which case all and any suggestions for improvement will be gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891

I'll comment soon(ish). In the interest of transparency, I will note that I was the GA reviewer and was forcibly dragged out of my comfortable ga zone() to review this at the request of Gog but intend to not let that impact my reviewing in the slightest. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh woe, woe, and thrice woe. What have I done? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Only the first book of the 40 comprising " MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures,"

Done.

• "The Carthaginians were engaging in their traditional policy of waiting for their opponents to wear themselves out..." could use a year somewhere in the paragraph if that's present in sources, just to give a reader something to anchor on

I see the issue. The year is in the previous sentence: I have rearranged the paragraph breaks so it should be clearer.

• • "By 256 BC the war had grown into a struggle ..." at the end of the next paragraph, you say " In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet..." maybe arrange chronologically?

Year changed.

• "Frustration at the continuing stalemate in Sicily and naval victories at Mylae and Sulci " years?

Done.

• "led the Romans to focus on a sea-based strategy" didn't you already mention that "The focus of the war shifted to the sea"?

Removed.

• " Both sides were determined to establish naval supremacy " did the Carthaginians not previously hold naval supremacy?

Yes. Before they lost Mylae and Sulci.

• "ship-handling skills would tell" I have this defintion of tell as "decide or determine correctly or with certainty." It might seem self evident, but could you clarify what it would tell? I think an alternate phrasing could serve to eliminate ambiguity

You need a better dictionary. Wiktionary: "To have an effect, especially a noticeable one; to be apparent, to be demonstrated." Changed to 'be decisive'.

• Is there a reason why the campaign map isn't centered and all the others are?

Cus the numbers in the key look really weird if they are not above one another. Happy to change it if it doesn't have a similar effect on you. Usually I much prefer centred captions.

• "vast herds of cattle" why is this in quotes? Surely you could say 'herds of cattle' or something along those lines?

Dequoted.

• "these more than 100,000 men over the winter" might mention the 100,000 men earlier in the text? It kinda just hits the reader as it stands, because the only stat mentioned before in direct regards to Roman troops is 26,000 legionaries and 20,000 slaves

I had thought that the flagging up of Ecnomus as the largest naval battle of all time had done the trick. Further mention of numbers seemed to be labouring the point. Better now?

• "failure to make up his deficiency in cavalry" There's no mention of a deficiency before this?

Good point. Rephrased.

• "major land battle during the war" what's the definition of 'major' being used here? I thought Regulus had a 'relatively small' force?

It's what the sources say. One of the four land battles (non-sieges) at which both sides had over 10,000 men. There were none with both sides having over 5,000. (Other than these four.) So it is a fairly clear divide.

That's it from me, feel free to discuss anything. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eddie and many thanks for the review. All good stuff. My thoughts and responses above and here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Tks for your responses, Gog. I'll digest and come back later today, I think. As far as dictionaries go, I once tried to read Merriam-Webster, but I gave up on the first page. Maybe time to pick it up again? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No rush Eddie. I took long enough to get back to you.

Dictionary: I don't think that you supposed to read them like that. It would make one's prose full of "An amorous aardvark ardently accepted an accurate accusation" type phrases. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear me, I forgot to revisit this. I'm happy to Support. Nice work! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from T8612

• I think a map of the site in Tunisia would be nice, or a photo of the Medjerda perhaps in the infobox. Perhaps there are good pictures on Commons.

Sorry; a map of what site? If you mean as in Battle of Cape Hermaeum#Battle and storm I am not sure that it adds information not in the campaign map; and there isn't really room for such a large map. Happy to include an image of the Medjerda. Any favorites? Bear in mind that in is only supposition that the battle took place near the Medjerda/Bagrates, and that the river played no part in either the battle or the campaign. I could possibly include eg File:Oued zitoun Bizerte Tunisia 8.jpg, File:Fernana-city.jpg or File:Oued zitoun Bizerte Tunisia 7.jpg with a caption "Part of the North Tunisian plain in 2016"?

My concern was that there is no map of the area until "Prelude" section. In your other FA you have usually put a map in infobox, like for Battle of Cape Ecnomus. Can't you do the same here?

Ah. Understood. It seemed more useful where it was, so I have copied it to the top of the infobox. See what you think.

• The caption for the operations' map says "5: Romans are defeated at the Battle of Tunis. (255 BC)", but it should say Battle of Bagradas, unless we rename the article Battle of Tunis.

I am very strongly tempted, but you are right. Fixed.

• Regarding the cause of the war. I would like you to reuse what you wrote for the Battle of Drepana, eg: Rome's expansion into southern Italy probably made it inevitable that it would eventually clash with Carthage over Sicily on some pretext. The immediate cause of the war was the issue of control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina). By 256 BC the war had grown into a struggle in which the Romans were attempting to decisively defeat the Carthaginians and, at a minimum, control the whole of Sicily. For the same reasons I mentioned during the previous review.

Done.

• You can say somewhere that Regulus was an experienced commander. He had already been consul in 267 BC and received a triumph for his victory against the Salentini. (source: Broughton, Magistrates, vol. I, p. 200).

Good point. Done. I have also footnoted that he was a last minute stand in.

• There is something missing in the Prelude about the peace negotiations. Polybius says that Regulus sought peace with Carthage because he wanted to receive the glory of ending the war before his successors could arrive to replace him. Other Greek historians say that it was Carthage who took the initiative because of war exhaustion. Walbank prefers the latter version.

Fair point. It is an area where several sources are doubtful of Polybius, but I should include his view. Done.

• Walbank also thinks the terms demanded by Regulus are not historical (they are given by Cassius Dio) as they contradict the terms of the Treaty of Lutatius (if Regulus wanted to take Sardinia, Lutatius would have demanded it too). See for the last two notes: Walbank, Commentary, vol. I, p. 90.

I am aware of this. I don't feel that a consensus of modern sources agrees with Walbank - as is often the case. I have put it in a footnote.

• Walbank dates the battle in early May 255. (same source, p. 91)

I am skipping dating things too precisely. It is not that I don't, personally, incline to the same opinion, or especially doubt that the storm occurred in mid=July; but there seems little if any consensus and it is not necessary to include Walbank's hypothesis. Let's face it, if the theories of every classicist were included the article would be three times as long and unreadable.

• Another thing missing, which I think is very important, albeit it could be developed in full in Regulus' own article, is the "Regulus Saga". Roman historians invented a long story of Regulus returning to Rome to offer peace terms from Carthage, but he advised the senate to refuse and he returned to Carthage to die. See Cambridge Ancient History, p. 556. It's a classic event in Roman history of the formerly arrogant commander changed by a defeat. He then became of model of virtue. See this article for example. There is a biography on Regulus that deals with the construction of this legend (Erving R. Mix: Marcus Atilius Regulus, Exemplum Historicum), but I don't have it. Still, I would mention this story in Aftermath.

If that belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Regulus article or in a separate article. It is widely accepted that the account is an invention, and I don't see why we need to introduce something which took place years after the battle and which the sources don't believe happened anyway.

Because this is an important event in Roman history, and it was only rejected for good in the 20th century. Some older literature still believed the story or was undecided. See for example the article in the DGRBM (p. 643, bottom half, and the next page). You don't have to tell the full tale, just saying something like that "Despite his defeat, Regulus was celebrated as a model of virtue by later Roman authors, who invented a tale on his heroic behaviour in captivity.". T8612 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm being picky, but it wasn't, and isn't, an important event in Roman history. It was important in Roman histography, but I am not at all sure that it belongs here. Nevertheless, added.

• I would say in the lede that Regulus lost because of his inferior cavalry, while he also did not use the cavalry that the Numidian rebels could have provided him. I don't think it is necessary to tell the detailed numbers of each force here (they are in the infobox too).

Numbers removed and replaced with text. The role of the cavalry expanded on a little in the lead.

T8612 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks T8612, that was a great review. Really had me digging into the sources and chewing my thumb. Your points all responded to above and several changes made. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Another small point: "Spartan training methods", you could link to agoge. T8612 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@T8612: your three follow up points responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the edits, although you may have made a mistake and did not move the picture. I think it's possible to leave the operations' map where it is though. Just do the same as on your article Battle of Cape Ecnomus: a small red dot on the map of Tunisia. T8612 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, you may have forgotten to add the map in the lede. T8612 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi T8612, thanks for the reminder. I have been experimenting with a few things, and have not felt that any of them are satisfactory. I agree that a map near the top showing the location of the battle would be helpful. But a map of the whole of Tunisia takes over the infobox, pushing it way down the page and taking out the image of Polybius. I would really like a push pin map of just northern Tunisia, but there isn't one. I am half minded to argue against having one at all, but I do think that it is a sensible request. The two least bad options seem to be to copy the campaign map to the top of the infobox, or put a miniature push pin Tunisia map below it. I have gone with the first of these. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's fine. If someone comes up with up with a better map, they can replace it, but the current one is ok. I support promotion now. Great job. T8612 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and for the earlier helpful inputs. Both are appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Given what is said in text about Carthaginian casualties, don't think we should say simply "800" in the infobox

Good point. Changed to 'At least 800 killed'.

• What makes Constanta Maritime University Annals a high-quality reliable source?

It is published in a reputable journal; by a university; and articles from the journal are frequently cited in academic articles.

• Be consistent in whether book sources include locations

Fixed.

• The Further reading entry needs reformatting.

Reformatted.

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Mnay thanks for looking at this. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Interesting read. I have some comments:

Lead

• suggest "They used this advantage to invade Carthage's homeland, which roughly aligned with modern day Tunisia in North Africa."

Done.

• suggest "maintain the lodgement in Africa over the winter" and link lodgement, as this isn't really a bridgehead or beachhead

Done.

• suggest swapping around a couple of links: Carthaginian army→Carthaginian army; over Carthage→over Carthage; and drop the later link to Carthaginian army

Done.

• link Aspis

Done.

Body

• "Carthaginian written records" link Ancient Carthage for Carthaginian and drop the later link

Done.

• can you say who Hoyos is? latinist?

A classicist. Done and linked.

• Arno River

Done.

• link Sicily (I know it is lineball, but I think we should err on the side of people being geographically challenged)

Done.

• link Messana

Messina linked instead. (They have the same target.

• suggest "Frustration at the continuing stalemate in the land war on Sicily, combined with naval victories..."

Done.

• "threaten their capital., Carthage"

Done. But note that in a previous FAC when I used the phrase I have just changed the text to, a reviewer aske me to add 'Carthage' for clarity.

• move "(close to what is now Tunis)" to first link to Carthage in the Primary sources section

Only if you really insist. In Primary sources, the city of Carthage is discussed a little in the abstract; here a grasp of its geographic location is more necessary to follow the text. So I feel that if its proximity to Tunis is only to be mentioned once, this is the place where it would be most helpful to a reader.

• "army.[32]The Roman" needs a space

Thanks, done.

• move link to Legionary for legionaries up to first mention

Done.

• suggest "and after a short siege, the city of Aspis."

Done.

• link Roman triumph

Done.

• suggest "Romans'"→"Roman force"

Done.

• link Balearic Islands

Done.

• drop the comma from "Spartan, mercenary commander"

Done.

• link hilt

Done.

• link Iberian Peninsula for Iberia

Done.

• there's one unhyphenated ISBNs

Fixed.

• author-link Nigel Bagnall, Lionel Casson, Roger Collins, Richard Miles (historian) and Brian Herbert Warmington, and move the author-link to F. W. Walbank to the 1959 work

Done.

That's all I could find to quibble about. Nice work so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the thorough review, appreciated. Your comments all addressed above, with one quibbled with. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Truflip99

Reserving spot for comments. --truflip99 (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• They gave charge of the training of their army, and eventually operational control, to the Spartan mercenary general Xanthippus. -- wouldn't it be better to establish who Xanthippus is at first mention?

That would, IMO, overload the first sentence, which is already a bit convoluted. A number I=of the terms in the first sentence require elaboration, but to do it all there doesn't seem practicable.

• combined with naval victories at Mylae (260 BC) and Sulci (258 BC) -- comma after this?

Good spot. Done.

• Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service, and would serve as infantry -- do you need the comma here?

Removed

• with body armour, a large shield, and short thrusting swords. -- last comma inconsistent with style

True. Gone.

I couldn't really identify any real issues apart from the nit-picked points above. Great read. --truflip99 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Truflip99 and many thanks for stopping by for what looks like a fairly painstaking review. I'm pleased that you enjoyed the read. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Was late to the party and missed out on all the errors! I'll try a lot harder for the next one ;) Support. --truflip99 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

• Add spring in the infobox.

What! In spite of MOS:SEASON? ;-) Done.

• which roughly aligned with modern day Tunisia Compound adjective here.

Fixed.

• to the Spartan mercenary general Xanthippus Not "to the Spartan mercenary General Xanthippus"? And link mercenary.

Fixed.

• is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC) Circa template is needed here.

Fixed.

• based on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin.

I wonder if yourself and the prior reviewer, Eddie891, could reach I consensus on this. As you know, my preference is to link it, but I will go with whatever you two agree.

• I'm happy to discuss with Eddie891. Per MOS:OVERLINK it states "However, try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others." and when I went to school back in the days I've heard from a lot of students between 12 and 18 years olds that they always complain or grumple why they should learn a dead language so I don't think it should be linked because I don't think children nor secondary/junior or high school students read this article because it's too cruel or they are not interested at all. Most people would know the language well enough. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

To be consistent with my other articles I have unlinked it for now. I won't link it unless and until a consensus to do so is reached.

• Hello, CPA-5 and Gog. I just don't believe that Greek language is any less well known then Latin. To compare pageviews (obviously not the only indication of comparability), Latin got 139,196 in the past 30 days, and Greek 99,234. In the lowest pageviews over the past 90 days, Greek got 2,362-- which is still a lot. Ancient Greek, to which I think the link should be to, gets 129,109 pageviews in 30 days. The dispenser tool counts 58,272 links to Latin and 18,721 to Ancient Greek, which suggests that, if anything, Latin is more commonly linked to. Further, MOS:UL advises us that "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully" should be linked. Whether or not Latin is common, I'd consider it a relevant connection to a battle mainly based on Latin and Greek sources. It's not that I think Latin isn't well known, just that in the context both Greek and Latin are relevant connections and comparable in pageviews, the most easily visible measure of comparison. To me it only makes sense to link both or none for these reasons. Hopefully this makes sense, and as always I am happy to discuss further. Regards, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, I hope that you won't be offended if I suggest that you are doing what the overlink guidance warns against: drawing on your own personal experience to extrapolate to a generality. Can I suggest that your experience of other people's knowledge, or lack of, of Latin is probably not representative of Wikipedia's global readership's knowledge, or lack of? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Excuse me? Personal experience, good question whether I'm offended or not. I'm just telling what MOS:OVERLINK says to us. We should look at demographic biases' of the events. I don't believe pre-university or college (or whatever it is in their countries) students are interested in wars and topics like this. If they are interests in these cruel topics then they know what Latin is. About MOS:UL I agree in some topics an overlinked term can be linked but we should draw the line here. If these topics should have a linked "Latin" to make relevant connections to the article then you can link everything. For instead, if you write Roman generals should they have "Latin" linked because it makes a relevant connection between Latin and the generals. I don't think so if you believe Latin is wide known so the example is useless then here another example. If you look at a not that wide-known article like Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor; the word Arab is linked but it shouldn't by MOS:OVERLINK but if we "have" to follow MOS:UL to make it relevant connection with the Arab people's article then it should be linked. Unless there is a study who tells us how many readers effective click on the word "Latin" to learn more in the Punic Wars, I'm not changing my view here. CPA-5 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• He was on the staff of Scipio Aemilianus when Scipio led a Roman army What was Scipio's rank or was he just a commander?

The 2nd-C BC; ranks?

• Well I mean was he a Consul or something else at the time? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No. He had no formal position at the time. (If I ever get round to the 2PW I may write about it; it is in the article on him.)

• as consuls, to each lead an army.[32]The Roman Space is needed here.

Done.

• 60 km (40 mi) south-east of Carthage Kilometre should be written fully here.

Done.

• possessions took the opportunity to rise in revolt No link for the revolt?

No.

• Link Balearic Islands.

Done.

• Among them was a Spartan, mercenary commander, Xanthippus Link mercenary.

Done.

• were divided between the flanks.[82][52] Re-order the refs here.

Done.

• Regulus apparently hoped to punch through Is it me or is punching here to be meant trying to break or push them back?

Correct: that's what it means here. As in "to punch a hole in": although not with a punch in this case.

• Link Iberia.

Done.

• "The Campaign of Marcus Atilius Regulus in Africa, Military Operations by Sea and by Land (256-255 B.C.)" --> "The Campaign of Marcus Atilius Regulus in Africa, Military Operations by Sea and by Land (256–255 B.C.)" in the sources.

Done.

• "Polybius (2020) [c. 167–118 BC]" needs a circa template.

Done.

• "The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning " Unlink Latin in the notes.

See above.

• "The Spanish used a heavy throwing spear" Spanish didn't really exist maybe replace it with "Iberians"

I am going with how the sources describe it and them. (Although I agree with you.)

• "This assumes, per G.K . Tipps, that all 114 captured Carthaginian vessels were sailing with the Romans" Typo between the "K" and the full stop.

Thanks. Fixed.

• Circa is needed in the 13,500 Roman deads also add "killed".

Why? That would contradict the sources. While I agree that it probably wasn't exactly 13,500, it is a long =established policy to follow the sources and give numbers rounded. You aren't quibbling with any of the other numbers in the infobox.

13,500 is the number of "Casualties and losses"; the number of these who were killed is given below.

• That's a good point – Gog: 1–0 EE. But this sentence of yours states: "Approximately 2,000 Romans survived" unless I'm stupid approximately means near or close to the figure and circa "could" also be near or close to figure I don't really understand why not circa or at least use approximately? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Now I see your point. I am being inconsistent. Fair enough. "approximately" removed. I was trying not to start the sentence with a number, but have used a different phrase.

• Many would be from North Africa which provided several types of fighters including: close-order infantry equipped with large shields, helmets, short swords and long thrusting spears; javelin-armed light infantry skirmishers; close-order shock cavalry carrying spears; and light cavalry skirmishers who threw javelins from a distance and avoided close combat. This is a pretty long sentence.

True, but it is well and heavily punctuated, so I don't see a problem. (I think that you know that I avoid overlong sentences unless I feel them necessary.)

• from the left wing Hyphen needed?

As it is not a compound adjective, I don't believe so.

I believe that's it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks EE. Good stuff. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, I have addressed all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Replied. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Thanks. Responded above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Forgot to reply one, sorry. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

CPA-5 Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:First Punic War Africa 256-255BC.svg: What's the yellow box supposed to mean?

It's a key to what the similar colour in the map represents. As that is all of the land include, I could remove it as unnecessary if you prefer.

Probably. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the photos of artworks might benefit from having their licences updated to clearly separate between the extant photographers' copyright and the nonexistent copyright of the artwork.

Good point. Done. Is this what you had in mind?

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

ALT text is OKish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"ish"? Cheek! Always happy to improve my alt text, on which there is a remarkable lack of guidance or ongoing feedback, so any tips or pointers towards especially egregious examples gratefully received.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for that. Much appreciated. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I am myself not always sure what correct ALT text is hence the "ish" comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are the images in a good enough state for you to pass the review? Or is there anything else I should do? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The images seem to be OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: G'day y'all. In the light of the above, may I fire up my next one? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose ? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, sorry I missed it the first time...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

@Nikkimaria: - how are things standing? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Fine by me. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.