Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Lake Trasimene/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 20 January 2023 [1].

Battle of Lake Trasimene edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in my series of nominations of articles from the Punic Wars. In this battle, Hannibal arrives in Roman Italy and inflicts 100% casualties on a Roman army in a single day. A defeat simply begging for an adjective. I took this through GAN in October 2020 and have worked on it extensively since then. In particular I have shrunk its size from 48 to 37 kB and its prose from 3,900 words to 3,200. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support edit

I'll review this in the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 22:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.
  • " the commander of the Roman army at Arrentium, set off in pursuit" - do you mean Arretium?
I do. Not sure how I managed to spell it correctly the first three times and then mess it up!
  • For Lomas 2015, you give a page range of 339-356 in the long citation, but then cite Lomas p. 243?
A typo. Should have been 343. That was eagle-eyed of you.
  • Likewise, for Ñaco del Hoyo 2015, you give a page range of 111-128 in the long citation, but then cite p. 377
I assume I messed up a cut and paste. Corrected, and all others checked.
  • I think something went wrong in the production of the long citations of that work edited by Hoyos in 2015, because the same page ranges are given for Naco del Hoyo and Rawlings, and the short citations then cite pages that are well outside of those ranges
As above. Both had the wrong ranges. *rolly eyes*
Something definitely went wrong! Thanks for spotting it. I have now rechecked all of the Hoyos ranges.

This is mainly reference formatting concerns, nothing major stood out to me. Hog Farm Talk 23:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, just a thought: was that intended as a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be one, although I prefer to do spot-checks when source reviewing. Would you be okay with sending me scans of three or four source pages? Maybe Bagnall 1999, p. 176., Lazenby 1998, p. 57., and Erdkamp 2015, p. 72.? As an aside, I don't know that you need to denote Hoyos 2015 as 2015b - since you're not citing the 2015 work he edited in an overall citation, and instead are breaking it down by chapters, I don't know that the distinction between those two sources is needed. Hog Farm Talk 21:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Sent. And tweaked as you suggest. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but 10,000 under Sempronius fought their way to the safety of Placentia" - not seeing where the cited page says Sempronius was commanding these 10,000
Goodness. So he doesn't. I actually can't think why not, but that's a poor excuse for reading straight past what it actually says. Replaced with Carey: "Sempronius and about 10,000 of his troops [...] fought their way out of harm's way ... to Placentia". Hmm. Which has the same page number! I wonder ...
  • " In spite of their losses, the Romans fielded twenty-two legions in 217 BC, ten more than in 218 B" - source focuses on the 11 Romans legions, but given the multiple references to the usual allied troops in the passage, this seems reasonable
Yeah, Lazenby uses "legion" to mean one Romman legion and it's complementary allied legion. The article, per the majority of the RSs doesn't. I confess that reading this 'cold' it does now seem a bit odd, but switching to Lazenby's approach throughout seems even odder.
  • "At Lake Trasimene the Romans fielded four legions – two Roman and two made up of allies – for a total of approximately 25,000 men" - based on the edition I'm using from the Internet Archive, I think you want p. 61, not p. 60
Grr. Amended.

Spot-checked a number of the cites of Lazenby 1998, only issues are the minor pagination one and then the Sempronius and Placentia one. Hog Farm Talk 23:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Hog Farm. My bloopers now amended. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass source review, and this is also a general support. Hog Farm Talk 18:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead edit

It's always a good day when Gog nominates an article for FA. I'll review over the next few days, but I am somewhat busy. If I forget to, please ping me. I will forget. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flatterer. You're going to want to shuffle all the commas around, aren't you? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny, Gog. You know, I actually can't tell if this is playful banter or gentle passive aggressiveness. I'm going to opt with the former. Sadly, I cannot impose my personal comma ideology on this site, so I will be forced to hold a vendetta against every single user here for the rest of my life... Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I shall never know when a mutant comma is going to take me down! I'm British, therefore it's banter; and should be taken as a sign of the esteem in which I hold your opinions, heterdox as I may find them. I hope that it also pokes gentle fun at my own pretensions. If this causes you even marginal disquiet, I shall cease. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never stop being yourself, Gog. I think Wikipedia is made less dull by humour! Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "...but were surprised when a Carthaginian army more than 50,000 strong crossed the mountains by a difficult but unguarded route" This sentence sounds off to me. Should there be an "of" in front of "more than"? Alternatively, the sentence could read "...but were surprised when a Carthaginian army numbering more than 50,000 strong crossed the mountains..."
If "of" is inserted, "strong" will need removing. I would be happy to go with your suggestion, if "numbering" is removed; I think a reader can work out that "50,000" is a number.
  • "...and after three hours hard fighting they were defeated" The grammar seems off?
Quite possibly, but I can't see it. How would '... and they were defeated after three hours hard fighting.' suit you?

More comments to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Unlimitedlead, I missed those comments somehow. Addressed, but a couple are queries back at you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your queries are alright. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A little later Rome made a separate treaty of association..." Do we know exactly when?
No.
  • "In 219 BC a Carthaginian army under Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum;[9][10] Rome declared war on Carthage." Did the sack of Saguntum directly cause Rome to declare war, or is that just something that happened around that time? The sentence leaves this open to interpretation.
Strictly it was more nuanced than that. But simplistically, yes. Added.
Done.
Done.
  • "In spite of their losses, the Romans fielded twenty-two legions in 217 BC, ten more than in 218 BC" Maybe add an "and" in front of "ten"?
Why? (I mean, would the sentence actually make sense then? Or is that a USEng thing?)
Done.
  • The paragraph beginning with "Once it was dark, Hannibal sent the various components of his army on night marches behind the hills to the north of the lake to take up positions from which they could ambush the Roman army" has very few citations. Is it possible to sprinkle some throughout?
Citations sprinkled.
Hi Unlimitedlead, your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog. Everything looks fine to me. I'm happy to support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sylvestre_Ducar_decapite_Flaminius_(Trasimene).jpg: since this is on Commons, it needs a tag for status in country of origin
Done.
  • File:Map_of_Rome_and_Carthage_at_the_start_of_the_Second_Punic_War_2.svg: the info presented doesn't seem entirely consistent with what's at the source? Also see MOS:COLOUR
Swapped.
  • File:Altar_Domitius_Ahenobarbus_Louvre_n3_(cropped).jpg: non-commercial restrictions are considered non-free per WP:NONCOM. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh. I had forgotted that we had this issue before. Swapped for File:Helmet typ Montefortino 01.jpg and File:Relieve de Osuna (M.A.N. Madrid) 03.jpg
Hi Nikkimaria. I have improved versions of the maps a455bcd9 is objecting to below on the way, but meanwhile your three issues have been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges edit

Claiming my spot here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This destruction of an entire army as a result of an ambush by another army is widely considered a unique occurrence. All 25,000 Romans were killed or captured." suggest reversing this, possibly as "All 25,000 Romans were killed or captured; this destruction of an entire army as a result of an ambush by another army is widely considered a unique occurrence."
Done.
  • "The trap failed to close on the 6,000 Romans at the front of the column, who were possibly also the Romans most prepared for battle" should remove the second "Romans", I think
Done.
  • @Gog the Mild: That's all from me; article is very well written. I've made some CE's (mostly just adding a word to link stuff better), feel free to revert any of them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked a couple of your changes. I have not altered your links to shock troops (two of them: is that ovwerlinking?) but I am not happy. Have you read the linked article? It focuses almost entirely on modern shock troops and the start of the lead is "Shock troops or assault troops are formations created to lead an attack. They are often better trained and equipped than other infantry, and expected to take heavy casualties even in successful operations." which is not of course the case with ancient shock troops. Eg see my footnoted definition taken from Archer.
Hi Iazyges and thanks for both the review and your generous comments. Your two points dealt with and a query raised above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undid my link; happy to support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a455bcd9 edit

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Start of the war map. I am hopefully calling in a favour to get a rapid composite of the correct features of both those maps. Watch this space. I am also looking at filling in the "teleporting" gap, in spite of my feeling that boiling 13 years of campaigning down to two loops and a zig zag does our readers a mis-service. I shall be back to you on these. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gog the Mild.
Regarding the first map, can File:Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War.svg be used instead? It's correctly sourced and without typos.
Second map:
  • I can fix the typos with Inkscape but let's list them all first ("Mediteranean", "milles", anything else?)
  • What does the colored area refer to?
  • Should we show Carthaginian and Roman territories as Britannica does?
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and A455bcd9: I have replaced both with the versions a455bcd9 suggests. For various anoraky reasons I am not completely happy with either, and am waiting for the map whiz Harrias to furnish improved versions. That said, the current maps should have overcome the stated problems. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved then, thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, apart from seeing if Nikkimaria wants to come back on my image review response that would seem to be everything[?] Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon -- like to leave open another day or two anyway but feel free to open a new nom if you so desire... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Constantine edit

Will review in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 19:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd suggest splitting Early in 218 BC... from the previous part of the lede.
That gives a four-paragraph lead for a relatively short article, with two of them very short. Running that bit in with the lead intro uis not ideal, but seems the least-bad option.
  • each side of the Apennines, 'each side of the Apennine Mountains' for clarity
Done.
  • Carthaginian Iberia, now part of southeast Spain don't know exactly why, but the 'part of' bugs me. Perhaps 'in what is now southeast Spain' or simply 'modern southeast Spain' (purely optional, of course)?
Done.
  • I would suggest mentioning the Barcid expansion a bit more directly, e.g. 'which he greatly expanded and turned into a quasi-monarchical'. Otherwise 'This expansion' that follows is not quite clear (no expansion was mentioned).
Good point. Done.
  • of the Carthaginian sphere of influence. add 'in Iberia'.
Done.
  • capturing several towns and repeatedly ambushed a Roman relief force 'capturing several towns and repeatedly ambushed Roman relief forces'?
Nope, it was the same, singular, relief force. (Poor sods.)
I stand corrected. Unlucky bastards... Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Reminded me of reading Street Without Joy.
The first seems very Easter eggy.
Half-expected you would say that. My counter is only that we don't have anything better. But this is optional. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. It's not as if it is not entirely self explanatory within the article. And anyone who really wanted to know more would have already clicked on consul. Nope, found the section "Presiding magistrate and elections" and linked to that. That do?
Oops, moving the Forces section had moved this to second mention. Fixed. Thanks.
  • The bust of Hannibal is clearly a much later and ahistorical work, I would note it as such (e.g. '17th-century imagined depiction of Hannibal' or something less awkward).
Strange, I used something like that when I used it before. Fixed.
  • A brief explanation on how the Carthaginians, after having 'arrived in Italy with 20,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry', but 'not having been reinforced since crossing the Apennines' had almost double the men at Trasimene?
Does "he Gallic tribes in Cisalpine Gaul recognised the Carthaginians as the dominant force and sent plentiful supplies and many recruits to Hannibal's camp." not cover this?
It does, but it is two sections earlier. Just a brief reminder of Gallic recruitment would suffice. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added "In the wake of this victory he was further heavily reinforced by local Gauls."
  • According to Polybius, Flaminius was completely surprised and provided no effective leadership. The openly pro-Roman ancient historian Livy... Hmmm, Polybius was able to rely on accounts of people contemporary with events, whilst Livy wrote two centuries later. I feel this should be noted (at least the time when each of them wrote their histories).
I have added a bit on Livy, see what you think?
Works for me. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 'Libyans' to Ancient Libya, since it means something different to today.
Slightly broader explanation added. And the link.
Much better, thanks. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First two done. The third would be a complete Easter egg surely?
Far less than 'Ancient Greece', I'd say. Magna Graecia at least covers the specific Greeks in Italy, not the entire ancient Greek world. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I specify "ethnic Greek". Clicking not that and getting a geographical area is an Easter egg. For "Italic" I don't link to Italy.
But Magna Graecia is the catch-all term for the areas of S. Italy where ethnic Greeks settled. Would Italiotes be a better link? Constantine ✍ 18:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed what is needed. Thank you. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: That's it. Well written, with excellent sources, and sufficient context and information for the layman. Excellent job, as usual. Constantine ✍ 09:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine, both for the review and for your comments, which are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: have replied above. Most of the stuff is highly optional, so I leave it to your discretion. Moving to support at this point. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Some comments above, which I am happy to discuss further. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from SC edit

Lead
  • "east of Cortona," maybe an indication of where this is? (modern day Tuscany, or central Italy)
The previous paragraph establishes that they were in Etruria, I have now added "(modern Tuscany)"; does that suffice?
  • "The following spring": I think we're supposed to avoid seasons – early the following year, or a month, maybe?
But military campaigning is season based. I could come up with a circumlocution. I think I could source "Once the ground was dry enough for travelling, the worst of the weather was past and there was sufficient foliage growth for cavalry horses and pack animals to forage ..." but its not exactly summary style. Perhaps I need to say that if that's what I mean? Yep, I can source it. What do you think? As it's the lead I could go with "Once the weather improved ..." or similar and save the mouthful for the main article.
I must admit I hate the SEASONS guideline - most of our readers probably understand the seasons are reversed between the hemispheres... You could go with what I also suggest for lower down: "In 217 BC, probably in early May", but as that may introduce an element of uncertainty in the timeframe, I will leave it to your discretion as to whether you leave as is, or hack it about. - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "quasi-monarchial": quasi-monarchical?
Done.
  • It feels odd going from the build-up to the fighting then to the formations, then back to the story of the fighting. If it worth considering putting the "Opposing forces" section before the "Prelude" "Background"?
Er. It is.
Prelude
  • "In spring 217 BC": ditto on the seasons comment above
See above.
Battle
  • "morning of June 21": 21 June is consistent
Apologies. I don't know what came over me.
Aftermath
  • 'executed "the greatest ambush in history."' Per WP:LQ it should be 'executed "the greatest ambush in history".'
Done.

That's my lot. A fascinating read that packs a lot of punch into a small space. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cat of Dubious Status, it seems a long time since I recieved one of your reviews and it is appreciated. All done bar one query. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with what there is: I'll leave it to your judgement how to deal with (or not deal with) the outstanding point!
I have no subject knowledge here, so I do not pass comment on the completeness of sources used, etc, but simply the standard of prose and adherence to the MOS in relation to FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the trusting support. I have moved the Opposing forces section as you suggest, but it seems strange to be starting the article with that. Originally it was after Prelude and before Battle and that may be the least worst place for it.
Seasons: I have switched the the spring in the lead for "Early the following year" but think I shall keep the second and fight my corner. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The positioning of the Opposing forces is only a suggestion, so if you think it’s better as it was, then keep it there - I’m not sure there is a perfect place for it, so go with what you’re happiest with. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL edit

  • I find the centering of captions a tad odd, but I usually leave aesthetic choices up to the editors. However, I do think whichever alignment you choose should be standardized across all captions.
Agreed and fixed.
  • The Oxford comma is used in some places and not in others. Again I would standardize.
Serial commas are not used in this article. A distressing number seem to have worked there way in, no doubt inserted by well meaning drive-by editors. They have been expurgated. Thank you for flagging this up.
  • Should "Southern Italy" be capitalized, as it is in its linked article?
Not in my opinion. I am open to other opinions but I don't see why it should be. I note that Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source and that the sources used in this article don't capitalise it. (On a quick random check.)
  • "Many would be from North Africa" --> As Carthage itself was in North Africa, could you specify the specific provinces where many of these troops come from.
The sources don't say. Some of those which I personally attach most weight to don't even add "North". There are references to Numidia in other contexts, but lacking anything specific I feel that mention of just this area would UNDUE and/or SYNTH.
Good grief. I think the link didn't make the rather vigorous pre-FAC copy and I missed the link going walkabout. Reinserted. Well spotted. Thank you.
Also, Livy is linked in his second mention rather than his first :)
Some days, it's just not worth getting out of bed. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "looting because they could not carry any more" --> Is a comma needed before "because" as it's followed by an independent clause?
Er no. (In passing, the wonders of different schools of commaisation never cease to amaze me. The same suggestion from a different editor would cause me to think they were having fun with me. Anyway ...) The type of commaisation consistently (I hope) used in this article would not put a comma there.

That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL333 00:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HAL333 and thanks. Some very good points. All addressed, one way or another. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 14:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship edit

Oh no! No possibility of a legacy section! Whatever am I going to complain about?

Ahem. As always, these are suggestions; feel free to decline with justification.

  • "Early the following year" is somewhat unclear. It sounds like you mean Jan/Feb, but knowing military language, you probably mean mid-to-late spring?
Grr. Just changed after a reviewer cited SEASONS. It was definitely after 15 March. You know what, I am going to go witgh a named season on the completely unwritten basis of MILITATY CAMPAIGNING SEASON.
Sounds good to me! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I adore the word "plundering", but surely there is a better way to say "...into Etruria, plundering, razing the villages"?
You like it. I like it. It means what we want it to mean "take or destroy all the goods of, by force (as in war)". What's the problem?
I just feel that the comma usage is slightly overboard in that sentence. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you perchance, be having a little merriment at the expense of a long suffering and broken down FAC nominator? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely...the comma conflict is rather entertaining, but I am quite serious. Why not "razing and plundering the villages"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly there needs to be an article on the Comma Wars?
Ah, now I see what you mean. That would suggest that the plundering was only being inflicted on the villages, which is not what I am trying to say. I shall recheck the sources to see if that is what I should be saying. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. The sources have "scouring the neighbourhood" (Goldsworthy), "laying waste the beautiful Tuscan countryside" (Lazenby) and "ravaging the countryside" (Bagshaw), the implications of which are lost if I amend as you suggest. Although I note that I have somewhat confused the message in the main article, so have slightly tweaked that. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to give some idea of the size of the Carthaginian forces in the lead?
D'oh! Of course. Done.
  • "at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. This was a third and even worse disaster for Rome" the "This was" can be removed, no?
Done.
  • "Hannibal assembled a Carthaginian army in New Carthage (modern Cartagena) and marched north into Gaul in May 218 BC. Hannibal left his brother Hasdrubal Barca in charge of Carthaginian interests in Iberia." Hannibal-repetition; maybe combine the two sentences?
Done.
  • I have split and redefined the hatnote in the opposing forces section; please revert if you feel it's unnecessary.
I worry about hat notes only a little more than I do about categories or article titles. Which is to say, not a great deal. I am only happy that there are informed and capable editors such as yourself who are happy to tidy up after me.
  • Is the paragraph about Scipio's 204-201 activities needed?
Well, if I wipe it someone is going to complain that I don't properly explain the aftermath. And it seems a reasonably succinct why of finishing with something actually readable. Rather than, say, "The Carthaginians lost"; which would be unimpeachably summary style.
Fair enough. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose quality is excellent. I support this article, and leave the above comments up to the nominator's discretion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AirshipJungleman29, good points one and all. Addressed above. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 10 January 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_Lake_Trasimene/archive1&oldid=1134839638"