Talk:Battle of Leptis Parva/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 16:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I can take this review on. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Eddie - 13 minutes!! And congratulations on your 200-1 triumph; do I need to call you "Sir" now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog! I think it was actually three minutes after legobot transcluded it, but who's keeping track? As for the request, I'm honestly just terrified of making a mistake (and I make many)— I'm very overwhelmed and humbled about the amount of support. Anyways, you should call me "Sir Edward, Administrator on the English Wikipedia since their 200-0 request, closed on the 19th of August 2020", but Eddie will suffice if you are willing to risk my terrible wrath . In all seriousness, you're still much more experienced and competent in content-writing than me, so please don't expect this means for a second that I'll stop asking you for help. Anyways, let's see what's on the menu for today... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Given that mutiny is a central concept to the article, I think readers would benefit from a link to it

What am I missing? I see it linked at first mention in the lead, infobox and main article.

Ah, I was thrown off by the link at 'mutinous' (where it should be, of course)

• "Hamilcar Barca was given supreme command in 239 BC and slowly turned the tide." so was Hanno in command at all? I see from the body that he was, but it isn't clear in the lede

I have changed "under the generalship of Hanno" to "under the leadership of Hanno". Does that help at all?

Yes, but it was more the fact that the last thing you mention w.r.t. command was "Hamilcar Barca was given supreme command in 239 BC and slowly turned the tide", which implies that he was still in supreme command in 238 (I think it would help to explicitly clarify that they reconciled in the lede

Ah. Done.

• Our article on Matho calls him Mathos-- what's up with that?

Different sources. I have just - this week - greatly expanded Mathos and stuck with what was there. When I expanded Mercenary War for FA I went with Matho - which was what the two hard copy sources I have which cover it best call him. I probably need to do a literature survey and see if there is a consensus sometime. (My guess is that there isn't.) Meanwhile, there is no policy requiring Wikipedia to be internally consistent.

• "to be paid off" personally, I think 'off' could be removed without much loss

Done.

• " They were supported by an uprising of Carthage's oppressed dependant territories" So, as memory serves, 1) Carthage also had Spanish territories and perhaps others-- did they participate? 2) how were they dependant? I get the impression that they were definitely suppressed but that Carthage was more dependent on them for food and the like. I'm aware of Dependent territory, but is that the correct term here?

Good query. I shall duck it and change it to "oppressed African territories".

• "After a significant victory at the Battle of the Bagradas River" Given that the sentence before you talk about the FPW, I think it's worth clarifying that this isn't the Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)"

Clarified.

• "He campaigned successfully" I think it's not really clear who 'he' is here

Clarified.

• " To prevent this," presumably to prevent soldiers being woo'd over, not to prevent leniency? I don't think it's immediately clear that the motivation was to avoid losing soldiers which it presumably was. Maybe "to prevent soldiers SOMETHING" would be clearer?

"SOMETHING" inserted.

• " had blockaded[...] putting" shouldn't the tenses line up here?

I am not convinced that that usage was incorrect, but my technical knowledge of grammar isn't that good, so I have changed it.

• "have been hoping to leave the area by sea, " are you missing the end of a sentence here?

No. Just failing eye sight. It looked like a full stop to me.

• " around in Byzacium " I think something's off here

Indeed. "around" deleted.

• "mid- to late" do you need the spaces? Should it be "mid-to-late"?

Nope. Trust me. Two different sources both use my construction.

• I think we still generally italicize in extremis

Done, although note that Wiktionary, among others, gives it as a standard, non-italicised English expression.

• "As the rebels situation" not great at this, but perhaps you need an apostrophe here?

Well, you're better than me. Done.

• "Few of the original mutineers survived to participate in this battle" I think you could be more direct about saying they died as this implies. If it refers to desertions, as the previous sentence suggests, perhaps 'survived' is a bit misleading and something like 'remained' would fit better

I thought that survived was a simpler synonym for "still alive", but OK. Replaced with "lived" and expanded the explanation a little.

It was more the fact that in the prior sentence you say "they had increasingly suffered from desertions" which would presumably also contribute to few mutineers remaining, but they would have survived, but we're now getting into intricacies of the english language that make my head swim... I'd prefer 'remained' but that's definitely not something to hold up a good article.

Changed to "remained".

• "Battle was given eight to ten weeks after" seems incomplete, perhaps you are just missing a 'the'

You have lost me here. I really can't see the issue, nor anywhere where a "the" could be grammatically inserted. Are you struggling with the phrase "to give battle"?

With the clarity of sleep, it looks fine to me

• "which probably helped to ensure that there was no desperate last stand" yet how would the rebels have known this? You mention three months of manouevres in the lede, but I don't see much mention of that in the body...

I'm not sure what the query is. I think that the source felt it obvious that if towards the end of the battle losing rebels saw their comrades not being cut down when they tried to surrender they would get the message. [*OR alert*] Or maybe there was an order to not use the traditional battle cry of "No quarter for torturers"? I'll dig into the sources and see if they elaborate at all.

I guess there's no real way of knowing so it's fine as is

• "Polybius says that they too "quickly" surrendered," why? also maybe "they surrendered too "quickly"" would flow better?

Possibly, but it would mean something completely different. What's your issue with the current phrasing? Re "why?" the sources say not. I can have a good guess, but it would be OR.

Yeah no real issue here. It's a shame we cannot use Gog the Mild 2020 as a source

• "The surrendered towns and cities" perhaps "Towns and cities that had surrendered"?

American, I am never going to understand that language. Tweaked.

That's a first pass from me-- great work, as always. Standard disclaimer, always happy to discuss, I don't presume I'm always right/my suggestions are great-- in fact I'm often wrong. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sir Edward, you're good at this. The primary sources are very thin on this battle, as you may have noticed, so it was a bit of a stretch finding enough to make a worthwhile article. But as the last and decisive battle of the war it seemed strange for it not to have an article. Any hoo, your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems as though you are still better, Gog. I've had a look at several of the sources and they all line up, as expected. Images are good, no evidence of copyvio. Passing-- despite a few responses, nothing to hold up promotion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)