Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Punic Wars/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 archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 28 December 2022 [1].

Punic Wars

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken the articles on all four constituent wars to FA, I am pleased to present the over-arching Punic Wars for your consideration. 118 years of bitter enmity between Carthage and Rome boiled down to 7,200 words. I took this article through GAN in September 2020 and have been tinkering with it since. I have recently been able to give it the time it deserves in an attempt to get it up to FAC quality and take on board comments from the FACs of its four "sub-articles". I look forward to your thoughts, comments and opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling this article would show up here eventually :) (t · c) buidhe 19:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship

[edit]

Will return shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC) As always, I emphasise that these are suggestions.[reply]

  • Preliminary comment: why not have a four paragraph lead, with the opening paragraph for introduction? As of now, the lead rather lacks any context for the general reader, and almost seems to eschew the larger article subject (the Punic Wars as a whole) in favour of details of each indivudual conflict. At least, to me it does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: On first reading that sounds reasonable - I wasn't over happy with the lead myself, but couldn't see what to do with it. I'll come up with a suggestion and post it here. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, do you plan to implement this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Apologies AirshipJungleman29. I propose that the first paragraph read:

The Punic Wars were a series of wars between 264 and 146 BC fought between Rome and Carthage. Three conflicts between these states took place on both land and sea across the western Mediterranean region and involved a total of forty-three years of warfare. The Punic Wars are also considered to include the four-year-long revolt against Carthage which started in 241 BC. Each war involved immense materiel and human losses on both sides.

I would adjust the sentence which currently starts "It lasted 23 years" and the Wikilinks appropriately. How does that sound? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Implemented. @A455bcd9 and Unlimitedlead: You may wish to review these changes to the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks great to me, but when you say "Rome contrived a justification to declare war on Carthage again in 149 BC, starting the Third Punic War", it's unclear what "a justification" refers to. Was it something Rome made up just so they could pick a fight with Carthage, or was there a genuine reason for war? I don't think this information is clearly communicated in that sentence. Do you think it would be constructive to offer some sort of explanation for the "justification", even if it's only a couple words? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph hasn't been changed, but fair point. I have tried to expand the sentence to something a little more comprehensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks a lot better now. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start a full review shortly, but I must note that I strongly concur with HAL333 below on the matter of comprehensiveness with regard to the conflicts' legacy, especially as Gog the Mild's chosen quotes to support his argument of very little legacy ("Roman imperialism was not a creation of the Punic Wars ... The Punic Wars were not the sole cause of the major changes in Roman society ... Most of the longer-term claims for the impact of Hannibal's invasion have rightly been rejected ... etc") seem to have been selectively editorialized from the original text. A section on economic and sociocultural impact is, to my mind, required. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: please withdraw this nomination. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up pretty much all the maps, and ensuring a legend is visible
  • File:Domain_changes_during_the_Punic_Wars.gif: see MOS:COLOUR. Ditto File:Iberia_211-210BC-it_(cropped).png
  • File:Bronze_statue_of_a_Hellenistic_prince,_1st_half_of_2nd_century_BC,_found_on_the_Quirinal_in_Rome,_Palazzo_Massimo_alle_Terme,_Rome_(31479801364).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Just a few things,

  • "this was possibly the largest naval battle in history by the number of combatants involved.[88][89][90] " It might be useful to give the number.
I have added a note.
  • "in what is now Piedmont, Cisalpine Gaul " I don't doubt that it's Piedmont but is it still Cisalpine Gaul?
Very tactful. Whoops. Corrected.
  • " Fabius became consul in 215 BC and was reappointed in 214 BC.[193]" Reappointed or reelected?
Reelected. In the sixth source I consulted! Some very dodgy political machinations, but they were technically elections. Duly amended and cited.
  • "frequently with success.[201][113]" Do you mean to have these out of numerical order?
No. I simply attach no importance to the number order of cites. Suspecting that you do, I have swapped them.
  • Claudius Nero is linked on the second use. Ditto Pyrenees.
Good spot. Both fixed.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Wehwalt. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by a455bcd9

[edit]

A few comments on the lead (merely questions or suggestions, not demands):

I don't see why. It is not usual to mention the nature of a state's government at it's first mention.
  • "in Sicily" (first mention): replace by "the Mediterranean island of Sicily" (second mention). It also helps explain "the island" at the end of the sentence.
Good point. Done.
  • "as a result of" => "due to"?
One could but why? I think the current phrasing flows a little better, but that is a subjective judgement.
No. It includes Rome's expansionary attitude outside Italy.
  • "Carthage's proprietary approach": what does this mean?
Er, what it says: Carthage, the state, corporately had or felt an attitude or policy of ownership or possession. I would be happy to consider other forms of words, although the three you quote seem as succinct a summary of the source as I can imagine.
Linked to Roman army of the mid-Republic
  • "on the Mediterranean island of Sicily" => "in Sicily" (also WP:DUPLINK)
Duplink removed - nice spot. Changed to on, per your second point above.
That wouldn't accurately reflect the sources. Eg, consider the battle of Cirta; neither near the coast nor in (what is now modern) Tunisia.
  • "on both sides": add comma after?
Er, no(!)
  • "By the terms of the peace treaty": add comma after?
I think you and I belong to rather different schools of commaisation. It's fine as is.
Done

Done.

  • "a major but eventually unsuccessful": remove "eventually"?
Why? It seems a succinct way of communicating that the war was protracted.
  • "within the Carthaginian Empire": only use of the term "Carthaginian Empire", to keep or replace by "Carthage"?
Changed to "Carthaginian territory".
Done.
  • "in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), on Sicily, on Sardinia and in North Africa": why not "in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), Sicily, Sardinia and North Africa"? Also: where in North Africa? I assume mostly in present-day Tunisia and Algeria based on the GIF?
Changed as suggested. Yes, but one could ask the same question of Sicily, Sardinia and Iberia. To, IMO, little point; the lead is meant to be a broad, succinct summary.
  • "Carthaginian homeland in Africa": what was this homeland? where was it? probably worth mentioning before when Carthage is introduced? Something like: "At the start of the war, Carthage was the dominant power of the western Mediterranean, with an extensive maritime empire centred around the city of Carthage in present-day [or modern? not a big fan of "what is now"] Tunisia." or "centred around the city of Carthage, near modern Tunis on the North African coast"
Why. I don't do this for Rome. And I think that avoiding this, at least in the lead, is the worst bad option. Feel free to come back on this if you would like to discuss the pros and cons further.
  • "A treaty was agreed in 201 BC" => "A treaty was agreed upon in 201 BC" + do we have an article for this treaty?
Sadly not. Not even a name.
  • "overseas territories": what were these territories?
Any and all. No source I have accessed lists them, nor did the treaty.
  • "some of its African ones": which ones?
It's the lead. Throwing in a name, eg Cirta, would virtually demand an explanation of what and where it was, and soon I would have a lead as big as the article. Bigger - this level of detail is not mentioned in the article, which the lead is a brief summary of.
Done.
  • "Carthage ceased to be a military threat": add "For Rome,"?
I think that it is clear given the preceding words: "prohibited Carthage from waging war without Rome's express permission. Carthage ceased to be a military threat."
  • "in what is now Tunisia": not necessary if mentioned earlier (would make more sense)
This was the first of the three wars in which Carthage's territories were limited to modern Tunisia.
  • "The previously ": useless clutter?
"previously" removed.
Done.
  • "The ruins of the city" => "Carthage's ruins"?
The current wording avoids possible confusion between the state and the city.
  • "16 kilometres (10 mi)": why use miles in this article without any ties to the US? Also: do we need that level of precision in the lead? The distance between Carthage and Tunis seems like a detail in the grand scheme of things and the history of the Punic wars. "near" or "east of" is probably enough.
Removed. And you are right re miles and kms.

A455bcd9 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A455bcd9, good to see you here again and thanks for the detailed comments. See what you think and feel free to come back on anything I haven't changed which you still think I should, or have and which you still don't like. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Gog the Mild: seems good to me for the lead! There are still imperial units in the rest of the article btw, e.g.: "two–twelve kilometres (1–7 miles) apart", "a bridge 1.2 metres (4 feet) wide and 11 metres (36 feet) long", "a triple set of 60-centimetre-wide (2 ft) bronze blades weighing up to 270 kilograms (600 lb)". Should they be removed as well? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9, I don't think so. The MoS at MOS:CONVERSIONS requires both, but you were correct that with no strong ties to the UK the article should lead with SI units with imperial conversions in parentheses. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I didn't know! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone knows all of the MoS. Sadly, as an FAC coordinator I am required to know more than most. :(
On a separate issue, when we might expect a follow up to you fine FAC nomination a few months ago? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha thanks but I don't know if I'll ever be able to nominate another article: I didn't expect it to be that hard and time-consuming to go from almost nothing to GA and then FA... I should first find a topic I'm passionate about. In the meantime, I'm trying to review more FACs and WT:URFA/2020. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing FACs is an excellent thing to be doing and I wouldn't want to dissuade you. I agree that to work something up to FAC one needs an enthusiasm for it. For one's early FACs it is easier to nominate more restricted topics. (So I took 18 articles on the Punic Wars to FA before attempting this over-arching one.) So, perhaps a film, song, book or TV program in Arabic? Just a thought. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point! (btw, I'm actually not that interested in Arabic and it's still a mystery to me why I dedicated one year of my life to this article :) ) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Ok, but you get what I mean. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

Hi, @Gog the Mild: nice to meet you again! I'm somewhat caught up with other Wikipedia business right now, so I'll slowly add more comments over time. Upon my first read, I've located some possible punctuation errors. I have listed some below, but I'd suggest consulting someone more knowledgeable in that field than I am. Other than that, I'm very happy with how the article is right now. None of the comments below are mandatory, but it would be nice if they were dealt with.

  • Perhaps the infobox could benefit from some images in the "Belligerents" section. See Anglo-Zanzibar War for an example of what I'm referring to. This is purely cosmetic, so it's alright if you disagree.
I disagree. An infobox is a minimal, barebones factual summary. Hang on. Do you mean "flags"? As in my FAs Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652) or Battle of Heraklion? If so then they hadn't been invented as such at this time and the MoS discourages one from anachronistically inserting proxies. If not, perhaps you could elaborate.
Yes, I meant flags. But thank you for bringing that to my attention.
  • "...with an extensive maritime empire; while Rome was a rapidly expanding power in Italy...": What conjunction is the semicolon standing in for? If there is none, I think a comma would be more appropriate.
Done.
  • "It lasted 23 years, until 241 BC, when after immense materiel and human losses on both sides the Carthaginians were defeated.": "Where" is being used as a conjunction in this case, which makes "after immense materiel and human losses on both sides" an introductory prepositional phrase, so there should be a comma following it (since it is a lengthy phrase).
I assume you mean "when"[?] If I agreed that there should be a pause after when I would indeed have inserted a comma. I don't. I have tried reading and speaking this out loud, inserting a pause sounds as if I have a speech defect. It unnecessarily breaks up the flow of the clause.
Oops, I must have been looking at something else. Apologies.
  • "A treaty was agreed in 201 BC which stripped Carthage of its overseas territories...": There should be a comma before "which", since "which" opens a dependent clause.
No there shouldn't. You are trying to apply particular school of commaisation when neither I nor the article uses that approach.
  • "Carthage ceased to be a military threat." => "Following this, Carthage ceased to be a military threat." (or some other variation on "following this"; the sentence sounds awkward and should be connected to the previous sentences somehow)
I missed this first time through. Now tweaked.
  • Consider introducing Craige Champion like how you did with "The modern historian Andrew Curry".
I think that would be unnecessary repetition. With the first person in the list identified as such, it seems clear that the second is also.
  • "...the consensus is to accept his account largely at face value...the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value...": Repetition, please rephrase.
I am convinced that I did that in my pre-FAC tidy up. Clearly something went wrong. Thank you for picking it up. Fixed
  • "...the account of the Roman historian Livy, who relied heavily on Polybius...Livy relied heavily on Polybius...": More repetition.
Yeah, I must have forgotten to click "Publish changes" or something! Fixed.
  • "According to the classicist Richard Miles, Rome's expansionary attitude after southern Italy came under its control combined with Carthage's proprietary approach to Sicily to cause the two powers to stumble into war more by accident than design.": I cannot comprehend the latter half of this sentence. Perhaps it is an issue on my part, though. A rephrasing couldn't hurt.
Before I tweak the article, how does 'According to the classicist Richard Miles Rome had expansionary attitude after southern Italy came under its control, while Carthage had a proprietary approach to Sicily. The interaction of these two policies caused the two powers to stumble into war more by accident than design.' read?
Great.
Done. Although on rereading I tweaked slightly to "According to the classicist Richard Miles Rome had an expansionary attitude after southern Italy came under its control, while Carthage had a proprietary approach to Sicily. The interaction of these conflicting policies caused the two powers to stumble into war more by accident than design."
  • "The region provided several types of fighter...": Is fighter supposed to be plural, or is that a special military word?
Ha! In 1PW I used "types of fighters". In 2PW a reviewer suggested that 'types of fighter' was already plural. I was bamboozled enough to be convinced. As you and I both agree on "fighters" I shall so amend both this article and the other.
  • "On occasion some of the infantry would wear captured Roman armour, especially among Hannibal's troops.": I think the article would benefit from introducing Hannibal in some way, even if it's as simple as saying "the general Hannibal's troops".
True. I am too close. Changed to "especially among the troops of the Carthaginian general Hannibal."
  • "As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies that were heavier than the Carthaginian vessels and so slower and less manoeuvrable." => As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies that were heavier than the Carthaginian vessels; thus they were slower and less manoeuvrable.
Done. Albeit a little reluctantly.
  • Could more be said about the usage and effectiveness of the corvus before the Romans stopped using it?
Certainly. I bang on about it at some length in the FAs First Punic War, Battle of Cape Ecnomus and Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC) so I could readily cut and paste complete with cites. But would not more on one piece of equipment used by one side for less than six years - from 44 years of open war - be disproportionate? That said, anything in particular you think there should be more of?
During my first read-through, I really only saw the corvus as something that stuck out as unusual. The only reason I knew what it was and how it functioned is because I'm a huge history nerd, but the mention of such a strange device might confuse casual readers. I believe adding even just a singular paragraph about it would be to the article's benefit.
I am - you may have guessed! a history nerd myself and am always reluctant to give in to expound on the details of military equipment or tactics. (You may love the Polish Military Institute of Armament Technology take a day off from HESH and Chobham to work on the penetrative effects of longbows on plate armour and chain mail: Numerical Analysis of English Bows used in Battle of Crécy.) I'll have a look through what the article says about the corvus and see what I can add.
Great. When you finish, please let me know what you have added.
My response was both wordy and nerdy, so I have placed it on the articles talk page. (But move it back here if you think that appropriate.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should work. If that's all for now, then I'll gladly support once this article receives a copyedit.
  • "...the battle of Cape Ecnomus off the south coast of Sicily." => ...the battle of Cape Ecnomus off the southern coast of Sicily.
Done.
  • "The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, adding 220 new ships and captured Panormus (modern Palermo) in 254 BC.": There should be a comma after "ships".
True. Done.
  • "...Hannibal defeated a force of local Gauls which sought to bar his way.": Would "who" be more appropriate here, instead of "which"?
Well now, "which" applies to "a force", so it looks right to me. But if you disagree I would be happy to change it.
Reading it again now, it sounds alright to me. It's alright the way it is.

I'd say I'm done with comments now. The rest of the article looks great, but there are several minor issues (punctuation, grammar, etc.), all of which I will not be listing here because that would take an eternity. I'll be happy to support once this article receives a throrough copyedit. @Gog the Mild: Awesome job on this article, and on the Punic War articles in general! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back tomorrow with some summary comments, and a read of your prompt responses, but right now I'm for bed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commas, grammar and copy editing. Obviously I gave the article a copy edit immediately prior to nominating it (per my checklist at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#GAN/FAC checklist), although the hiccup in Primary sources clearly shows that it didn’t all run smoothly. So, I have established that I am at least as likely as any other editor to make a silly error. And at as least as poor at proof reading my own work.
That said, I have a fair bit of experience at copy editing. While serving my Wikipedia apprenticeship I copy edited articles including well north of 500,000 words for WP:GOCE – see a partial list here. For several years I was the GoCE go to copy editor for GoCE Requests aspiring to an FAC nomination. I still get occasional requests from experienced FAC nominators to run an eye over articles prior to being put up for FAC. I mention this not to suggest that it should give me a pass on this article but in an attempt to establish that I am not some semi-literate who does not know what they are talking about.
I have had a further detailed run through the article and made a number of tweaks. The cumulative diff is here. Beyond there no doubt being the usual smattering of silly errors, I don't see that there is a lot of copy editing needed. Tell me, could our differing views on this be due to our belonging to differing schools of commaisation? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It actually could be. My English professors have always been insistent on comma usage, so it actually was shocking to me when I found out that not all introductory prepositional phrases needed commas! However, it's not just the commas that I'm concerned with. Several sentences (some of which I have pointed out above) didn't exactly sound right upon reading them. I'll read through the article again to see if everything's alright. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just skimmed the article and it appears to be in better shape; I'll support this nomination. Once again, great job on this article, and good luck with whatever it is you have in store for us next time! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. That sounds like my feelings when I discovered commas apparently scattered at random across an article. (My school had corporal punishment, and I would probably have received at least a smart swipe with a ruler for "Today, I ate breakfast" or "In 58 BC, Caesar invaded Gaul." Shudder! "Speech defect Gog? Pay attention!")
Ah, well. So many potential FAs, so little time. My "to do" page gives an idea of what I shall be choosing from. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, that's quite the list you've got. Wishing you double the luck! Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comment Comments by Borsoka

[edit]

After quickly comming through the first section ("Primary sources"), my impression is that the article needs a thorough copyedit. The short section contains unnecessary repetitions, and also sentences that (at least seemingly) contradict each other. Examples include:

  • "Modern historians consider Polybius to have treated the relatives of Scipio Aemilianus, his patron and friend, unduly favourably but the consensus is to accept his account largely at face value. The modern historian Andrew Curry sees Polybius as being "fairly reliable"; Craige Champion describes him as "a remarkably well-informed, industrious, and insightful historian". The accuracy of Polybius's account has been much debated over the past 150 years, but the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value."
  • "The account of the Roman historian Livy, who relied heavily on Polybius, is commonly used by modern historians where Polybius's account is not extant. Livy relied heavily on Polybius..."
  • "Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral between Carthaginian and Roman points of view. ... Livy ... was also openly pro-Roman." Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka and thanks for bringing that up. You are quite right. Something went wrong with my pre-nomination copy edit for Primary sources, as other reviewers have also pointed out, probably my missing the vital stage of clicking "Publish changes".
  • Duplication of "consensus is to accept his account largely at face value" removed.
  • Duplication of "relied heavily on Polybius" removed.
  • The five uses of "modern" are all deliberate, and IMO each is necessary.
    • I still think that at least two of them could be changed or deleted. For instance, I am not sure that Andrew Curry is a historian at all ([2]). Or, do we need to specify that modern historians use Livy's account where Polybius's accouint is not extant?
  • I am not sure I understand your last point. In case the issue is around the use of "also", I have changed the phrase to 'as well as being openly pro-Roman.'
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been busy during the last week but I am planning to complete the review in a couple of days. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA

[edit]

Will do a review when all these reviews above me are finished. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, this is probably ready for you now. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges

[edit]

Will also perform a review once the above are completed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iazyges, CPA-5 seems a little slow out of the blocks, so perhaps you would care to chip in? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against a king of Epirus who alternately fought Rome in Italy and Carthage on Sicily, Carthage provided materiel to the Romans and on at least one occasion used its navy to ferry a Roman force." the phrasing of this seems slightly weird, I suggest reorganizing to "Carthage provided materiel to the Romans against a king of Epirus who alternately fought Rome in Italy and Carthage on Sicily, and on at least one occasion used its navy to ferry a Roman force."
Ok. I am largely with you, although your suggestion might lead a reader to understand that the Epirian king's navy did the ferrying. I have trimmed t to "During the Pyrrhic War of 280–275 BC Carthage provided materiel to the Romans and on at least one occasion used its navy to ferry a Roman force."
  • "with a better-off minority providing a cavalry component." suggest mentioning them by name, such as"with the equites, a better-off minority, providing a cavalry component.
Nope. I really don't like introducing foreign language words into English Wikipedia articles unless it is a technical term which I am going to use again. In any case, it seems unnecessary. And in the third place - :) - once i do it I will be asked to do the same for every other Roman and Carthaginian troop type!
  • ". (The latter were usually Numidians.)" placement of this with parenthesis seems somewhat awkward to me, suggest changing first period to a comma, or moving to a footnote.
Sorted.
  • "In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet and used a shipwrecked Carthaginian quinquereme as a blueprint for their own." suggest reorganizing to "In 260 BC the Romans used a shipwrecked Carthaginian quinquereme as a blueprint for their own ships when they set out to construct a fleet."
Why confuse a reader by reversing the chronological flow of the narrative?
  • It also seems to me that this sentence would serve better as the beginning of the next paragraph (before "As novice shipwrights...") than at the end of this one.
D'oh! Smacks forehead. Done.
  • "manoeuvring large forces difficult and favoured the defence over the offence" perhaps can be made simpler as "manoeuvring large forces difficult and favoured defenders"
Ho hum. How about 'manoeuvring large forces difficult and so encouraged defensive strategies'?
Good by me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "this was possibly the largest naval battle in history by the number of combatants involved" I think this could use elucidation for "combatants", as this could, to me, mean nations, ships, or, as the case seems to be, personnel. Suggest changing combatants to "personnel" for clarity's sake.
"Combatant" has a perfectly clear meaning: wikt:combatant "A person engaged in combat, often armed." It is not grammatically possible for ships or nations to be combatants.
  • I do note that the phrase "heavily defeated" is used often in a short period in this section (three paragraphs back to back) and may benefit from some variation, if possible.
Oops. Two of them removed
  • "The Treaty of Lutatius was agreed. By its terms Carthage paid 3,200 talents of silver" this seems awkwardly short to begin a paragraph, suggest "The Treaty of Lutatius was agreed to, wherein Carthage paid 3,200 talents of silver..."
Good point. Sentences run together, but in a slightly different way.
Thanks for this Iazyges. Your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to finish this off tonight; one of the bits (now bolded) hasn't been responded to, I think as a result of my dirty trick of responding to it myself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Romans beat off a Carthaginian attack" the usual suggestion to change this from "beat off" to "repelled" or something of the nature, given the American primary meaning.
You do realise that you are the only editor who ever notices/mentions this? Changed.
Well, it's an easy excuse to harass you, why not take it? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "into combat by Hannibal at the battle of the Trebia, encircled and destroyed" suggest adding "where it was" or "and was" before "encircled or destroyed".
Done.
  • "The prisoners were badly treated if they were Romans, but released if they were from one of Rome's Latin allies" suggest "Roman prisoners were badly treated, but those from one of Rome's Latin allies were released."
I prefer the original wording. Any particular reason for suggesting a change?
Simply reads as slightly awkward to me in its current state, nothing huge.
Thanks again Iazyges, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do so; and happy to Support the article as featured quality, and see the Punic Wars featured topic full of bronze stars. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Iazyges, and interesting to see that I am not the only one aware of that lacuna. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]
Done.
Done.
:) Sadly, it doesn't make the cut. It's a neat anecdote, but it didn't even get into First Punic War. Even our article describes the "battle" as a "skirmish" in its first sentence.
  • On that topic, there seems to be a scarcity of images of actual warfare, in an article about warfare. Perhaps lose the Hellenistic Prince as it may just be some other random fellow.
Not sure how losing an image gives us any more on a different topic. Most of my FAs on individual Punic War battles have no images of fighting at all. There just aren't m/any. Naff 19th C re-imaginings aside.
  • I think you should expand the "Aftermath" section, maybe retitling it as "Legacy". What was the long-term impact of the Romans' victory on their government and prosperity? If I remember correctly (although this may some other Scipio), Scipio Africanus opposed the total destruction of Carthage as he thought the Romans needed a constant threat to "keep them in shape" so to speak. I think there's some scholarly work on that. Try to pull up some other angles from the sources too.

Nice work. ~ HAL333 19:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"he thought the Romans needed a constant threat to 'keep them in shape' ". That was Scipio Nasica prior to the war, probably using the issue in his political disputes with Cato. (Of "Carthago delenda est" fame.)
Honestly, there really is little if any "legacy" specifically tied to the Punic Wars, which rather petered out while Rome was dealing with weightier affairs. As an illustration, Goldsworthy ends his book on the war with a chapter titled "Legacy". "Hurrah" one might think. It is almost entirely a review of the course of the war. Most subsequent developments are linked to either things changing at some point after the war, for reasons unrelated to the war, or are explicitly stated to not be linked to the war. ("Roman imperialism was not a creation of the Punic Wars ... The Punic Wars were not the sole cause of the major changes in Roman society ... Most of the longer-term claims for the impact of Hannibal's invasion have rightly been rejected ... etc") The two impacts of any consequence which the sources mention are the development of Roman marine power during 1PW, which I already mention, and the improvement in Roman logistics during 2PW, which I have now added. So thanks for making me re-trawl the sources to pick up that last point.
Hi HAL333, good stuff, all addressed now. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost ready to support... but I have to throw a final wrench in the works. How about representation in art and literature? I'm not quite as well-versed in Roman lit as I would like to be, but I know there's some possible forshadowing of the wars in Queen Dido's suicide in the Aeneid. I'm sure there are more tangible examples in classical art and literature too. In our times, the first epic film—Cabiria—was about the 2nd Punic War. There's lots of that. And as there's no article like Punic Wars in art and culture, I feel like this would be the best place for it on Wikipedia. ~ HAL333 19:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Off hand, that sounds like a deal breaker. This is an article on the war, not on popular culture about or around the war, no matter how refined or venerable it may be. As you say, "there's no article like Punic Wars in art and culture". This lack does not make this article an appropriate home for material which should really go there. Ask yourself "If Punic Wars in art and culture existed, would I be asking for all this stuff to go in Punic War?" If the answer is "no", I don't see that it is an appropriate destination just because no one has created the appropriate article yet. If the answer is "yes", we have a different situation; if it is, let me know, I am keeping my powder dry. :) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on comprehensiveness. These are some of the most important wars in human history, and I think their impact and legacy need to be explored more deeply. The article for World War II does a great job with this, but that much isn't needed/possible here. It doesn't have to be exactly what I touched on above, just whatever arises organically as you peruse the sources. I'll strike my oppose if you expand it substantially and substantively. ~ HAL333 21:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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.
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/Punic_Wars/archive1&oldid=1130061652"