Talk:Battle of Lake Trasimene/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Lake Trasimene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060324193819/http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/ to http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Surprised and outmanoeuvred, the Romans did not have time to draw up in battle array, and were forced to fight a desperate hand-to-hand battle in open order. The Romans were quickly split into three parts. The westernmost was attacked by the Carthaginian cavalry and forced into the lake, leaving the other two groups with no way to retreat. The centre, including Flaminius, stood its ground, but was cut down by Hannibal's Gauls after three hours of heavy combat.

Is this an accurate representation of the tactical situation, or just confused conjecture of what may have happened? The author does not cite any sources for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boozermonkey (talk • contribs) 18:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 16:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I will start the review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The war lasted for lasted for 23 years,"

Fixed..

• What was the Roman-Saguntine treaty about? Was it a defense agreement? Specify.

If only one could. Goldsworthy's summary of the current scholarly debate "Rome formed an association with the city of Saguntium ... the debate over whether or not there was a formal treaty ... or whether the city simply requested Rome's protection ... does not matter for our present purpose." My view too. (Goldsworthy gives no further detail of what the debate is.) I see little point in explaining to readers that the relationship could have been this, or maybe that, but we don't know and that it doesn't really matter. (*OR alert*: IMO Hannibal and Rome were playing "chicken" and both misjudged the situation. Rome was vague with Saguntium and Hannibal thought this meant they weren't serious.)

Treaty of association would suffice.

Done.

• Move wikilinks for legion, Sardinia, Latin allies and reconnaissance to first mention.

Done. (Latin allies already is unless I am missing something.)

• Wikilink Cremona, formation and Corsica.

Could you tell me which "formation" you would like linked to what? I can't see any pairings that I think would be helpful to a reader.

Formation (military)

Done.

• Etruria wikilinked twice.

Fixed, and a couple of others - I must have forgotten to run the tool.

• Third and fourth paragraphs in Carthage invades Italy are unreferenced.

How odd, and what a beginners mistake! The more so as I have just taken Battle of Ticinus and Battle of the Trebia through GAN and so have the sources at my finger tips. Any way, done and apologies.

• (now Piedmont)→(present Piedmont), for consistency.

Done.

• "The Carthaginians moved south into Etruria, plundering the plentiful stocks of food and looting, razing the villages and small towns." This sentence could benefit from a semicolon.

I am happy to take your word for that, but I absolutely can't see where. If you would care to specify, I will insert it.

Never mind.

--Catlemur (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers for that Catlemur. Your comments all addressed, a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• None of the maps currently used in the article cite a reliable source. Add a citation to their respective Commons pages.

Three done. Sadly the creator of the (rather good) "218 aC GALLIA CISALPINA.png" has not left sufficient information for me to track down their source(s), so I have removed it.

• Ancient accounts state that a thick morning mist near the lake limiting visibility→Ancient accounts state that a thick morning mist near the lake limited visibility

Done

• The trap failed to close on the 6,000 Romans at the front of their column→The trap failed to close on the 6,000 Romans at the front of the column?

Oops, done.

• Is the United States Military Academy map caption necessary? If so just add "Map of the battle" to the front.

No; removed. New caption as you suggest.

--Catlemur (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Catlemur: All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Added a couple of categories to finish it off. Good job as always.--Catlemur (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: --Catlemur (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)