Talk:Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I can take this one Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

15 minutes! You're slipping . Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Link the "failed invasion of the Carthaginian homeland" in the lede?

Link it to what? (There is no separate article on the invasion.

• "Ras ed-Dar" should this use {{lang}}?

tl is Tagalog. Wrapped in Arabic.

• "The Carthaginians had 114 of their ships were captured," 'had' vs 'were', one has got to go?

Very true.

• "What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known" maybe "Whether there were Roman losses is not known" or "Any Roman losses are not known"-- I just think the ', if any,' is an unnecessary break

I am trying to say too things here. I could express it more wordily, but would rather not. Is it a question of your not understanding, or of finding the term a little clunky?

• "Greek and Latin sources" why link Greek language but not Latin language?

*Rolls eyes* Because my last seven FACs/ACRs have been reviewed by CPA-5 who asked me to unlink Latin. I am sure that their reasoning is sound. So I decided to stop pushing my personal preference to link it and, just this once, prophylactically unlink it. Now linked. If I take this to ACR, I imagine that I shall be asked to unlink it.

• "The galley expert John Coates " might be useful to clarify that he's a modern expert and not a Roman expert or even like a medieval expert?

Done.

• "prior naval experience" -> "naval experience prior to the First Punic War" might be useful to remind readers what this sentence refers to, and clarify that it isn't just more background?

Done.

• "The quinquereme provided the workhorse" -> "was the workhorse"? I know 'provided the' is used by some authors, but 'was the' seems to be far more common from a quick google search

Done.

• "are also occasionally mentioned" mentioned where?

Fixed.

• does ubiquitous need a wt link? I'd think it's a rather common word-- one might even say it's ubiquitous

In another review I was specifically asked to link it. I agree with you, so unlinked.

• "At least half of the oarsmen would need to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively." maybe "At least half of the oarsmen needed to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively."?

Done.

• You should probably describe and link the corvus

Gah! I can't believe that I did that! Too close. Done.

• "25,000 soldierswho would have included many of the survivors of Regulus's army and 70,000" I only count... 95,000?

I am quoting a source. Where do you get 95,000 from. (This is not the same size fleet as the previous year and was carrying an unknown number of captured Carthaginian rowers. An OR calculation gives 384 times (300 plus 120) equals 161,000 as an upper limit. And 384 x 340 = 130,000 as a lower. So I suspect that the sources are being conservative.

• "with probably many of these being" -> "with many of these probably being"?

Better; done.

• I'm confused about the dashes here: "rs of Regulus's army – and 70,000 rowers and crew – with". As I understand it, those dashes are essentially parenthesis, meaning you have written "rs of Regulus's army (and 70,000 rowers and crew) with" which would imply that the 'survivors of Regulus's army' were Carthaginians taken captive?

I have repuncuated. Better?

• "Polybius is critical of what he considers the poor judgement and poor seamanship displayed." is he referring to the battle or the storm?

Good point. Clarified.

That's it for a first pass, may have more later... Nicely done. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks once again Eddie; your usual top quality review. Your first pass comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I think that's pretty much it. Your coordinates go to a spot on land? Other then that, I'm satisfied that the article is well written, reasonably comprehensive, well referenced and otherwise meets the GA criteria Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Thanks Eddie. Maybe the shoreline changed? (My, accurate, coordinates for the naval Battle of Sluys are, now, ten miles inland.) Tweaked. Better? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, alright, I'm now happy to promote to GA. Nice work! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, thanks; you put a lot of work into these reviews, and I appreciate it. On a separate note, may I ask your advice? This article has been a little "bricks without straw", there is so little information on the battle in the primary sources. Would you advise that I leave it as a GA, or is there enough meat on the bones for it to have a chance at ACR, or even FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, That's a hard one, I'd definitely say it's borderline, particularly because as you say there's so little written on it. What I gained from a bit of scouring the internet is that there really isn't much that's not mentioned in the article; apparently Polybius just says the Carthaginians presented no problem. A potential problem I see might be that the storm is also really only covered in this article, so there might be some expansion possible there? You could also consider adding a bit more about how little the battle is covered, that's what DeSantis (linked above) seems to mostly talk about when he's not rambling about his own theories.

But I'd reckon you could squeeze an ACR and maybe FAC through as long as it incorporates all historiography available, seems like there is just enough in the article. There are certainly shorter articles that have gotten the star.

As an aside, keep your eyes open for Fabian Ware; I can feel this is the week he's going to be ready for ACR. Just need to finish my book (that just arrived-- only a week and a half late!) and double check all the sources and read through the article again. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)