Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Utica (203 BC)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 27 February 2023 [1].

Battle of Utica (203 BC)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another article from the Second Punic War. The beginning of the end for the Carthaginians, as a Roman army invades their homeland in North Africa and takes apart their army in a tricksy surprise night attack. Extensively worked on by myself, it has just passed its GAN. Hopefully you will consider it worth a look over at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges

[edit]

Reviewed at GAN, happy to Support at FAC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iazyges, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps and/or including a legend in the caption
Done.
  • File:Scenes_from_the_Battle_of_Zama_MET_149866.jpg needs a tag for the original work
Done.

Support from Unlimitedlead

[edit]

Comments to follow over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding citations one and two, do they support the bust being of Scipio rather than Sulla? If not, does there really need to be two, or even any?
They do. Otherwise they wouldn't be there. I would be happy to lose them, but some editors get excited about that sort of thing.
  • "the allied armies of Carthaginian and Numidian" sounds very strange. Perhaps you meant to say "the allied armies of Carthage and Numidia".
Yeah. I have already tweaked that. No idea what I was thinking.
Done.
  • Maybe Roman army would be appropriate somewhere in the lead? I was thinking "Appointed consul in 205 BC Scipio spent a year in Sicily training his army and accumulating supplies", but that's just a suggestion.
Ho hum. Done, despite my feeling that it's Easter eggy.
Now usually I go along with reviewers on links, even when I think that it is over-linking. But, really, how many readers do you think are going to think "I could do with knowing more about this camp" and click on it? And how disappointed are they going to be when they see what they get referred to? It seems both WP:OVERLINK and WP:EASTEREGG, nevertheless I will if you wish, but are you sure.
Any linking I ever recommend on FAC is optional. Feel free to carry on. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four years later, Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica on a cynical pretence..." This is rather vague: what is meant by a "cynical pretence"? Did the Romans just take the islands by force for no reason?

Yes. See Mercenary War#War#Sardinia for a brief account, or Treaty of Lutatius#Treaty#Sardinia and Corsica for a fuller.

  • Just as I've stated on another FAR, it could be wise to briefly introduce Hannibal. Maybe "n 219 BC a Carthaginian army under the general Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum"
Quite right. I have gone with "In 219 BC Hannibal, the de facto ruler of Carthaginian Iberia, led an army to Saguntum and besieged, captured and sacked it."
Done.
  • "There was also extensive fighting in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal)" You have already stated that Iberia is modern Spain and Portugal in the Pre-war section.
Removed.
  • "In 210 BC Roman reinforcements stabilised the situation;[23] Later that year Publius Cornelius Scipio..." After the semicolon, "Later" should not be capitalized.
Whoops.
I think not. If it were linked to something, citizenship seems more appropriate.
  • In note 4, you say " (Which was largely reserved for inhabitants of the city of Carthage.)"; I think this belongs as part of the sentence itself, rather than a separate end statement. If you do keep it in parentheses, please de-capitalize "Which" and place the period after the parentheses.
I removed the parentheses and it didn't work. I tweaked it and it still didn't work. So they're back. (And, as a whole independent sentence, it is capitalised and ends in a .)
  • I just saw "(The latter were usually Numidians.)", and I'm starting to question myself. Maybe statements in parentheses do go outside the sentence.
  • If you linked Gaul earlier in the article (according to my previous comment), delink the one in "As well both Iberia and Gaul provided..."
But they link to different targets. If I do that there is not an opportunity to discover what Gaul and the Gauls were.
  • This is totally unecessary, but I think the Opposing forces section would be better if it included two sub-sections: one on the Romans and the other on the Carthiginians.
I like reviewer comments which start like that ;-) Done.
I hesitate to ask, my knowledge of Wikipedia images being what it is, but why have you moved the photograph of hte helmet to face away from the text?
Oh I just thought it looked better. Feel free to move it back if you'd like. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Livy and briefly introduce who he was.
Done.
  • "Ancient Roman historians go to great lengths to excuse or explain his behaviour" Can you give some examples of who said this?
In the article or for you. Obviously I could do either. If in the article I think it inappropriate to summary style to give more detail on a trivial and only marginally on topic point. If for you, let me know; I could quote here of email you scans of the texts.
I was wondering if that would be useful to have in the article. Do as you desire! Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have relooked at this, but I don't think it could sensibly done. I would need to explain at least some of what Scipio said, why it may, or may not, have been dodgy, what an ancient historian said about it and why/how this - arguably - got Scipio off the hook. For the slim point involved it still doesn't seem worth that. Eg, see here most of page 207 and top of 208.
If the information does not fit into the article in a reasonable manner, you should not feel obligated to include it. Apologies for any confusion. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An indemnity of 10,000 silver talents[note 6] was to be paid over 50 years. Hostages were taken." These sentences can be merged.
Done, although it now reads horribly. I think you only suggested it to sneak another comma in.
No comment ;) Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, I think you'd be delighted to know that I gritted my teeth in disappointment at the lack of commas in this article.

Excellent. :=)

However, everything else looks great. Another quality article to add to the ever-increasing pool of Punic War FAs. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unlimitedlead and thanks for that. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the support Unlimited. No need to apologise for anything. It is a reviewers role to prod re anything they are reasonably unhappy about. It's then for me to either amend, or explain or justify my position. And making me relook at stuff is good. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
That was easy. :-) Thanks Sturmvogel 66, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Comments from Jim

[edit]

I'll add as I read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was a specific reviewer request from Unllimitedlead. See our discussion on links above.
It's not the link, it's the way it's displayed with a # in the text, which isn't standard English, perhaps Roman Gaul as it was during the Republic? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Jim, I misunderstood. I made a mess of implementing the above comment. It should say just “Gaul” in the text. It does now. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not totally convinced by "Pre-War" which implies the peace before the storm. Maybe First Punic War? perhaps
Done.
  • the Roman pair reinforced to an unprecedented 6,200 infantry and with a more usual 300 cavalry each.—perhaps each

of the Roman pair reinforced to an unprecedented 6,200 infantry and a more usual 300 cavalry.

Good point. Done.::Thanks Jim. Your comments addressed above and ready for more. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinforcements were sent to Mago, perhaps add in Liguria to remind us where he is?
Done.
  • succession war perhaps war of succession?
I slightly prefer it how it is, but am open to persuation.
G'morning Jim, thanks for taking the time to review, the additional suggestions and the praise. All are appreciated. A couple of responses from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: This nom seems to be ticking along nicely, so I was wondering if I could have permission to nominate another? It has been a while since I have put in one of these requests, but I have had a recent attack of creativity an so, unusually, have several articles queued up to put to FAC. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Whimper. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aw sorry chum, too many notifications these days -- go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Utica_(203_BC)/archive1&oldid=1141998094"