Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Zama/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) 13 May 2023 [1].

Battle of Zama edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal! Elephants! Scipio Africanus! Numidian cavalry! Two great generals at the top of their form fight it out for the fate of empires. Yes, it's yet another battle from the Punic Wars. With added elephant dung. But it was decisive. [Plot spoiler] Hannibal was finally beaten. I have had an eye on this one for some time and have been working up to it. It went through a rigorous GAN from Harrias last week and I now offer it up for comments and queries here. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias edit

  • It strikes me that I completely forgot to bring up the length of the lead at the GAN. MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that most FAs "have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 15 sentences, or about 300 words total." This lead is double that. I appreciate that it is still four paragraphs, but those middle two paragraphs are chunky. In the interest of me ripping the heart out of your prose, how do you fancy trimming it down a bit? Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just can't get decent reviewers these days. Trimmed. While still four paragraphs, two are relatively slight and only one can, I think, still be described as "chunky". Even that has been slightly slimmed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chunky one now trimmed back further. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely getting better. Could I tempt you into a little more?
Both commanders felt a need to commit to a battle, so when the Carthaginian army marched inland to confront the Romans a battle shortly ensued. This opened with a charge by the Carthaginian elephants. These were repulsed, with some retreating through the Carthaginian cavalry on each wing and disorganising them. The Roman cavalry units on each wing both took advantage to charge their counterparts, rout them and pursue them off the battlefield. The two armies' close-order infantry were each deployed in three lines. The first twofront lines engaged each other and after a hard-fought combat the Carthaginians were routed. The second Carthaginian line, fighting "fanatically and in an extraordinary manner"[according to whom?], then assaulted the Roman first line, inflicting further heavy losses and pushing it back. After the Romans committed the troops of their second line the Carthaginians were forced to withdraw. There was a pause, during which the Romans thinned and extended their line, to match that of the Carthaginians. These two lines charged each other, according to Polybius "with the greatest fire and fury"[citation needed]. The fight continued for some time, with neither side gaining the advantage. The Roman cavalry then returned to the battlefield and charged the Carthaginian line in the rear, routing and destroying it.
Yeah, I don't reckon I looked at the lead in detail at all during the GA review. My bad. I'd recommend getting rid, or at least para-phrasing, one of the quotes. Harrias (he/him) • talk 23:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some more trimmed per your suggestions. Your suggestions re the cavalry will leave a reader with the clear impression that each side only had one cavalry contingent, which wasn't so. Quotes don't need to be cited in the lead, so long as they are in the main text. They do need to be attributed. (If they're an opinion.) Some further trimming in other paragraphs, Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first two engaged" -> "The front lines engaged" – the reason behind this suggestion is because there might be ambiguity amongst readers as to whether "first two" means two from each army, or just two overall. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The first two lines engaged each other".
Overall, I'm content with the reduction; we've dropped down to around 420 words, which for a longer than average FA, seems about right. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed that presumably during the GA trimming, "Scullard, Howard H. (1955)" is no longer used as a source, so can be removed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 23:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.
  • Support, while there might be bits I'd do differently, I'm happy this article meets the FA criteria. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead edit

I would like to clarify that I am not stalking every one of Gog's FA nominations, but rather I am stalking the FAC candidates page. It just so happens that Gog produces an exceptional amount of work that I have personal interest in; ergo, I am always early to his nominations. Now that that has been said, review to follow over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several duplicate links spotted, but they seem appropriate.
I have removed a couple anyway.
  • I swear, File:Stele des Polybios.jpg is going to haunt my in my dreams. I see it everywhere I go!
You can't get too much of Polybius!
  • ALT for File:Bust of Sulla (loan from Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek) - Glyptothek - Munich - Germany 2017.jpg (slightly) does not match the image.
I keep doing that. Tweaked.
  • Ditto with File:Hannibal Slodtz Louvre MR2093 (cropped2).png
Also fixed.
  • Several of the publications in the Sources section (looking at Bahmanyar and Hoyos in particular) have strange capitalization; upon further inspection, the covers of the publications themselves do not capitzalize words that normally would be. Not sure what to do in this case, but I am happy to leave this matter in the hands of someone more knowledgeable than I.
The MoS lays down a style, regardless of what the works themselves say. (Which can differ between the cover, the title page and the information page.) I have run through and picked up two errors - one of which was Bahmanyar, very eagle eyed.

Review of the article's actual text will follow shortly. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...resulted in such a severe defeat for Carthage that it capitulated" For better prose, I suggest replacing "it" with "the city".
But the city didn't capitulate. The state of Carthage did. Happy to consider tweaks if you think this is not clear from context.
I belive it is unclear: I thought you were referring to the city. I would say "the state", or something like that, instead for clarity.
I have avoided the issue by using "the Carthaginians".
  • In your previous FAs, Iberia was linked in the lead and accompanied by the brief explanation "(modern Spain and Portugal)". Why is that not the case here?
Sloppiness? Fixed.
Umm. I don't want to go into too much detail about someone who was dead before the battle started, but a little more inserted in the article. See what you think. Re the lead, I think its fine - it is clear from context that he was the commander of a Carthaginian army serving in Italy and I think that is enough for the lead.
  • Polybius is not linked in the lead, nor is he introduced.
Oops. Done.
  • "...with neither side gaining the advantage": Is it "the advantage" or "an advantage"?
It's "the".

Those were my comments on the lead. You were doing so great, Gog; I am saddened to find that the lead was sparse in terms of commas. The Carthaginians had exactly five times more elephants than there are commas in the lead! Sigh, let us just move on past this disappointment and take a look at the article's body. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You counted the commas! *shocked* You need to get out more Ull, or stay in more, or something. Get yourself over to the UK and I'll show you how to have a good time. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The American is tempted to take you up on that offer. See you in a decade? Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do so. Although you may wish to check with Harrias what I d for fun. Although what they do is even more gruelling. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources: Overall a wonderful section. There is not a lot to say about it.

  • Hoyos accuses Appian of bizarre invention in his account of Zama, Michael Taylor states that it is "idiosyncratic": Who is Michael Taylor? Also, I think that comma should be replaced with a semicolon, or something to that effect.
Comma: I disagree, but it would mean one less comma, so pouf! Introduction: I don't think it helps a reader to put modern historian in front of each and every one of them. I say "Modern historians usually" at the start of the section where several views are mentioned and I don't think a reader will have difficulty working out who is being referred to.
I take your point. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • consul is not linked at first mention in the body.
Corrected.
  • "despite not meeting the age requirement" I believe at an earlier FAC, I pointed out that stating Scipio's age at this time could be helpful; it was implemented in the article? Can we have that again here?
We can.
  • "...while still in Spain..." Spain as in the modern country? Or as in the Iberian Peninsula?
Argh. Changed to Iberia.
I'm a slow learner, but I get there.

Looks like that is all from me. Another wonderful effort. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly Unlimitedlead. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will support this nomination, then. Great work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a455bcd9 edit

Hi, just one comment: do we have a source for File:Mohammad adil rais-battle of zama-1.PNG? Best, a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. We do now. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Problem solved for me ✅ a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a455bcd9 (Antoine). Do you fancy doing the full image review? :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a guide "How to do image review?" somewhere by any chance? :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates#Media. When I do them my basic checklist is "appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted". If you like, once you have done it you can ask someone else to look it over to confirm, or otherwise, your judgement. I imagine Harrias would be willing as they have already looked at the images at GAN. And if you feel the need, do ask questions. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a try, following your basic checklist :)
  • File:Stele des Polybios.jpg: Ideally a photo with a better resolution would be better, but we don't have one. The Commons description says "relief stele of Kleitor supposedely depicting the Achaean statesman and historian Polybius", so should we include this in the caption? Also, for consistency with Scipio and Hannibal we could add the date.
Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source. The HQ RSs accept it as a representation of Polybius without qualification, for example this, from De Gruyter, Presenting and Perceiving Monumental Texts in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, 2016. Usually I only put a date in when they are not - at least roughly - contemporary. On which note I am not sure how a date slipped into the Scipio caption, but it is now removed. Thanks for picking up the discrepancy.
Its accurate enough. There are plenty of similar images of Numidian cavalry, but they are all copyright, which is why I have had to go back to 1891, although from an RS - Theodore Ayrault Dodge. There are plenty of more modern - non-PD - images agreeing with Dodge's concept. Eg [2]. (Yes, most of these are not RS, but I offer them to make the general point.)
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a455bcd9 (Antoine), many apologies for taking so long to get back to you on your straight forward points - both RL and Wikipedia have been a bit crazy. Anyway, many thanks for your review and I have finally addressed your points. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. Looks good to me! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Very little from me. These are the only points that I noticed, and very minor they are:

  • "Rome stripped Carthage of all of its overseas territories" – do we need the second "of" here? Or in any of the nine later "all of"s? (Though possibly "After Scipio overran all of Carthaginian Iberia" looks more natural with the "of".)
I am going to regret having questioned your counting skills, aren't I. Done.
  • "Despite the Romans being well supplied with siege engines" – without boring everybody to sobs with grammatical niceties about gerunds, I suggest this would be better as "Although the Romans were well supplied ..."
Grammatical! You want grammaticaal? I usually charge extra for that. Done.
  • "Scipio lined them one behind the other" – reads a little oddly to me: perhaps "one behind another"?
Rephrased as "Scipio arranged a principes maniple directly behind each maniple of hastati."
  • "Javelinmen" – as discussed at the FAC for the Battle of the Trebbia, the word is hyphenated by the OED and Chambers.
Hyphen added.
  • "Lazenby describes these skirmishes as "desultry". – I bet he doesn't: the word is "desultory"
"Desultry: boring, staid, not sexually attractive". What's your problem?
  • "Carthage appealed to Rome, which always backed their Numidian ally" – we seem to switch from singular to plural here. Possibly "backed its"?
Whoops. Done.
  • "These elephants ...should not be confused with the larger African bush elephant" – I'm still not likely to confuse anything with an African bush elephant and I still think "should not be confused" has a touch of WP:EDITORIAL about it.
Tweaked.
  • "Masinissa also married Syphax's wife, Sophonisba, Hasdrubal's daughter. Syphax was taken as a prisoner to Italy, where he died." – did he marry her while Syphax was still alive? Perhaps monogamy was not a requirement at the time.
He did. Indeed, think Sabine women. ("youthful and beautiful"; "as irresistible a charmer as Helen or Cleoptra"; "so rekindled his earlier passions".) I mean, what is the point of being a king if you have to stick to the rules?
I seldom think Sabine women – not my area of expertise – but thank you for clarifying. Tim riley talk 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the adoptive grandson of Publius Scipio" – I think the old boy was an adoptive grandfather, but Scipio Aemilianus was his adopted grandson.
Oh dear. Fixed.

That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 09:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of you Mr riley. I realise that these sword and sandal epics don't match your favourite chivalrous charmers, so I appreciate your plugging away at them regardless. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My privilege and pleasure! If so minded, dear boy, you may return the compliment by looking in at the peer review of the article on John Galsworthy, which I'm hoping to bring to FAC in the not-too-distant. – Tim riley talk 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good evening Tim, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgetful of me (old, Master Shallow!). I hasten to complete my review with a support. The article is a splendid read, seems neutral and judiciously proportioned, has excellent pictures and appears well and widely sourced. Meets the FA criteria in my view.
As a matter of general interest, what was the last article you brought to FAC in which nobody was killed? Tim riley talk 16:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I have bad news for you: no one gets out of here alive. Try to bear up. I have submitted the odd nomination where the body count was only in the hundreds. Although I can't remember when. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken 53 articles to FA, jointly or severally, and as far as I can recall we have managed to get through without killing anyone. But I suppose we must all accustom ourselves to your liberal scattering of corpses. And it must be admitted that your battle (I mistyped as "ballet" before correcting myself) articles are superb. Tim riley talk 17:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! Technically no one died because of the Truce of Calais! It reduced the tempo of the Hundred Years' War but "did not stop ongoing naval clashes between the two countries, nor small-scale fighting in Gascony and Brittany." Of course, the truce only happened because of the Black Death and its immediate after effects - which killed an estimated 62.5% of the population of England. And a third of the population of the world. And Treaty of Guînes. That's two. Out of 60; 62 by the time this one is promoted, assuming that I can con the coordinators into thinking that it meets the criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good! One out of 62 with no bloodshed! Tim riley talk 21:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens edit

Carthage expanded its territory in Iberia, (modern Spain and Portugal) from 236 BC - should the comma behind the gloss?

It shouldn't be there at all. Thanks.
  • Scipio and Carthage entered into peace negotiations -- this was already mentioned.
Whoops. Fixed.
  • The Carthaginian senate recalled both Hannibal and Mago from Italy -- again, we had a very similar sentence already.
True again. Also expunged.
  • those which could fled, avoiding - not sure here; does it need to be "avoided" rather than "avoiding" and without the comma?
Nope, it reads fine to me. You sure? I could always just rewrite it.
  • Maybe add a sentence on Scipio's war preparations, since this seems to be a gap in the article. We learned that he was allowed to built an army, and the next thing we learned is that he set over to Africa. I was wondering to what degree this was actually backed by the senate. But yes, this is all not really pertinent to this article, which is on this particular battle, so not sure if anything should be added.
LOL! I mean, actual, real LOL. In a pre-FAC going over, mostly but not exclusively, at GAN, Harrias and others persuaded me to take an axe to what I originally had as background, including specific info on the points you raise. (Eg, see the Prelude section of Battle of Utica (203 BC).) Harrias feels strongly about this; they take a bare bones approach to anything not closely focused on the article title. (See also here.) So, given that they have supported the article as is, and that you don't seem to view this as a deal breaker, I'll invite their opinion before doing anything. Similarly AirshipJungleman29. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent read! It might take me a few days to respond since I am travelling. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Jens, much appreciated. Your points all addressed, with one awaiting further input before actioning, or not. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Jens, much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Johnbod edit

  • No link to the rather large Commons category, and none of the fun post-Renaissance images are used. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment edit

Unfortunately I am going to be away from the internet for several days. I am aware that I have an open review above. Hopefully A455bcd9 and @FAC coordinators: will bear with me.

PS Johnbod, I am not sure that I understand your comment. Is it actionable? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
!!! Easier to do than explain, apperently, so I've done it. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not so impressive, but possibly not to scale.
Meh. Some eye-candy is nice, but most of the images are much later and imagine some sort of top-heavy elephant and castle or howdah arrangement, like a mobile fortification. But the elephants at Zama were smaller and less well trained, and probably only had the driver/mahout and possibly one or two others armed with javelins. Like this (right).

If we want more images, I'd like some better indicative diagrams of the battle as it evolved, not just the rather enigmatic and indistinct initial positions (eg. 1. Punic elephants and cavalry chased off, 2. Roman first and second line defeat their opponents, then 3. both lines extended to match each other, before 4. the Roman cavalry returned to attack the Carthaginian rear).

And when you've done that, also a moon on a stick, please. Theramin (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Shetland elephant! There are many diagrams on Commons, and plenty of room in the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with Theramin. The images you have inserted actively mislead readers as to what the battle looked like. As well as the points mentioned above, just as a sample neither army included African elephants, used pikes or wore 16th-century armour. I could draw a phantasmagorical image and label it "Battle of Zama"; it would still just be misleading eye candy. So I have removed these two. From all the of imaginings of the battle on Commons I have not seen any which are accurate, but would be delighted to be surprised. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • This is my second source review, so any advice is welcome
  • Looking at this version
  • Please standardise "John Wiley" and "John Wiley & Sons"
Whoops. Done
  • "Taylor, Michael J. (2019). "Reconstructing the Battle of Zama". Forthcoming in Classical Journal. " - doesn't need "forthcoming in"
Ok.
  • most publishers are not wikilinked, a few are eg Routledge and Institute of Classical Studies/Oxford University Press, please standardise one way or other
Standardised.
  • "Les Scipions. Famille et pouvoir à Rome à l'époque républicaine" needs a translation
Done.
  • in Sabin, Philip (1996). "The Mechanics of Battle in the Second Punic War". Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement. 67 (67): 59–79. - somehow there's 2x67
Bleh! One removed.
  • seems like you are using pp for books and not for journals, just thought I'd flag it but I guess you are being consistent
That's not me, that's the template. I assume it has its reasons.
So he can - done.
  • Walbank, F. W. (1990). Polybius. Vol. 1. - I think the title of this one is just Polybius
Nice spot! Amended.
  • Sidwell, Keith C.; Jones, Peter V. (1998). The World of Rome: an Introduction to Roman Culture. - suggest "An"
Done.
  • Journals eg the JSTOR ones need |url-access=subscription
The template documentation suggests that if JSTOR's access is indicated, then "|jstor-access=free" should be used, so I have added that where appropriate. In the one case where I give the url of a non-JSTOR lournal article I have added "|url-access=subscription".
From Template:Cite_journal#Subscription_or_registration_required: "subscription: the source is only accessible via a paid subscription with the provider of the source" I'm taking JSTOR as paywalled, since if I click for example on https://www.jstor.org/stable/43767904 then I get "Login in through your school or library". So then I think it should be |url-access=subscription. Right now Rawlings has an open padlock and a closed padlock by the way. Hope that makes some sort of sense! Mujinga (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reluctantly attempted to do what you requested, but can't. For the sound reason that I haven't given urls, so can't specify the access level of them. Template:Cite journal states - a little below the bit you quote - "Links inserted by named identifiers are presumed to lie behind a paywall or registration barrier – exceptions listed below" where jstor is one of the exceptions and the only parameter allowed for its access level is "free". (Possibly because one can access using Wikipedia as one's "institution", I wouldn't know. But that's the way the template is set up.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok I see, thanks for explaining that. So then it's just Rawlings that needs editing, since right now it has an open and a closed padlock and in fact it needs neither, since "Links inserted by named identifiers are presumed to lie behind a paywall". Mujinga (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry Mujinga, I got over focused. Rawlings fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great all done Mujinga (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refs are mostly title case but not for example Hoyos, Dexter (2003). Hannibal's Dynasty: Power and politics in the Western Mediterranean
Oops. Thank you. Fixed.
  • "I ritratti di 'Mario' e 'Silla' a Monaco e il sepolcro degli Scipioni". needs an english translation
Added.
  • not sure if it is consistent to have the two ISSNS
    • for Coarelli this is the article link
    • for Rawlings the JSTOR link is fine
I am not convinced about that, but done.
  • Carthage Must Be Destroyed - full title is Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization
Expanded.
  • Liddell Hart, B. H. (1976). A Greater Than Napoleon: Scipio Africanus. - title is Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon
Not the work I consulted. See [3].
I stand corrected, thanks Mujinga (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Curry you have 2012 but not January/February 2012, which is not consistent with eg Edwards, Jacob (2001). "The Irony of Hannibal's Elephants". Latomus. 60 (October–December): 900–905 Mujinga (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Archaeology usually refers to its editions by numbers. I have changed it, so it is now consistent, but I am not sure it is correct.
Wonderful stuff. Many thanks Mujinga. Some very insightful stuff there. I could do with you checking all of my articles' sources pre-FAC - this is not a joke. All of your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words - the only thing still open before a pass is the JSTOR query. Mujinga (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on JSTOR Mujinga (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review pass, happy to revisit if any other sources are added Mujinga (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Borsoka edit

  • Why "Primary sources" not simply "Sources"?
Because the section only addresses the primary sources and not the secondary. As is usual in Wikipedia articles, there is no specific reference to the secondary sources and I think that retitling the section "Sources" would probably mislead a reader into thinking that the section addressed all relevant sources.
  • Could you mention coins, inscriptions, and archaeological sources?
I already do. Last sentence of "Primary sources".
Yes I know. Could you specifically refer to some of them at least in a footnote? Or describe their relevance. For the time being, the list is not specific in context: these are the sources of Ancient history everywhere.
That is what it is meant to be. I have added an example.
  • Hannibal's army campaigned in Italy for 14 years before the survivors withdrew. Who are the survivors? To where and why did they withdraw? Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the last four words.
  • One of Carthage's allies in Iberia was the Numidian prince Masinissa... He was Carthage's northern Afican ally who fought in Iberia. Could we describe the USA as the UK's ally in Europe during WWI and WWII just because troops from the USA fought in Europe?
Yes, we might. (Although one might also describe the UK as one of the US's allies in Europe, especially during the latter parts of WII.) So 'One of the British allies in Italy in 1944 was the Polish II Corps under Anders.' And so on with infinite examples and tweaks of phraseology.
  • Link Roman consul when consul is first mentioned in the main text.
Gah! I am an idiot. Done.
  • Hannibal was still on Italian soil;... We were informed in a previous sentence that (likely) the Pun armies withdrew (to somewhere).
If you are referring to "During the following four years Scipio repeatedly defeated the Carthaginians, driving them out of Iberia in 206 BC." then that refers to driving the Carthaginians out of "Iberia", while this sentence refers to the presence of Hannibal on "Italian" soil.
No, I was referring to the sentence about the withdrawal of the "survivors" to somewhere after campaigning in Italy for 14 years. :)
  • Why "centuries" instead of centuria?
Because the RSs universally use the English language term.

Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as usual Borsoka for your comments, I appreciate them. All addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The latter were usually Numidians.) Why the brackets? Numidians should be linked when they are first mentioned.
It seems to me a parenthetical point, but brackets removed.
Oops. Good spot. Fixed.
  • Link and introduce Hasdrubal when he is first mentioned.
Done.
  • Carthagian Senate or Carthagian senate? Is "S/senate" the proper term? The article about Ancient Carthage only says that the Adirim was similiar to the Senate of Rome or the Gerousia of Athens.
Good point. Checking the HQ RSs, it is S. The one s has been promoted.
  • Link Cisalpine Gaul or refer to it as northern Italy.
Done
  • Leptis Minor and Hadrumetum are mentioned as modern Lepta and Sousse, respectively, but no other settlement's modern name are mentioned (e.g., Genua, Bruttium).
Lepta and Sousse removed.

Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka and apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this - RL has been pressing. Your comments to date all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka, I feel guilty nudging you after taking a week to respond to your comments, but I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completed the review and did not find further issues. Excellent article, so I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Onegreatjoke edit

Copying this from the talk page comment I made. I don't plan on reviewing this article, this is just a comment.

  • "Hey @Gog the Mild:, is the background too big? I may be overreacting but we've got four paragraphs on the background and four on roman preparations. Then we have a paragraph on an invasion of Africa and then four paragraphs on a bunch of battles before this battle. Then, we have another two paragraphs detailing Hannibal's return and then finally two paragraphs on the prelude to the battle before the article on the battle actually begins. That kind of seems like a little too much background. Though, I would like to hear your opinion on this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)"[reply]
Hi Onegreatjoke. The background was cut down considerably at GAN, perhaps 40% was trimmed, when Harrias reviewed. They are even more of a background minimalist than you, but ended up, I think, broadly content. Personally I would rather expand the "background" material than further reduce it. One FAC reviewer above explicitly asked for additional background material, which I declined - knowing that I was treading a line twixt their and their ilk's view and that of you minimalists. Absent further reviewers opining or comments on narrow and specific parts of the text I think that the weighting is more or less right. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Support. Just one comment: among the several Senates you have one senate, which could do with being tweaked. (I’d do it myself, by I’m immensely lazy). - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat and thanks for both your support and your constructive laziness. Senate blip now clarified. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz edit

Hi Gog, I have a few bits since my first run through. Back soon, JennyOz (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally finished. Just a few queries...

  • add dmy and briteng templates?
! Done.

ibox

  • (near modern-day Siliana, Tunisia) - all others just have modern (ie no hyphen day)
"-day" removed.

lede

  • was fought in 202 BC in modern Tunisia - just me maybe but "202 BC in modern Tunisia" reads oddly? in 202 BC in what is modern Tunisia?
You sure, that reads really clunkily to me. I have gone with "what is now northern Tunisia". How's that?

Primary sources

  • the details of the war in modern - is "the war" referring to the Punic Wars or this particular battle?
I am referring back to the first sentence "The main source for almost every aspect of the Punic Wars" so there should be an s on the end. Now added. Does that help?
  • Hoyos accuses Appian of bizarre invention in - does bizarre invention need quotes?
I could make an argument either way, but would - slightly - prefer a reader to understand that that was precisely a HQ RSs considered and published view.

Background

  • Hannibal led a large Carthaginian army from Iberia, through Gaul - link Gaul
Done.
  • fighting in Iberia from 218 BC - intentional link to people not place?
No. My mistake. Fixed.

Roman preparations

  • There he was elected to the senior position of consul in early 205 BC, despite being aged 31 when the minimum age for the position was 42 - maybe swap "for the position" to 'for the office' to avoid 2x position?
Good thinking - done.
  • its logistical follow up were considerable - I'd say that as a noun it should be hyphenated ie 'follow-up'
Wiktionary allows either.

Fighting in 203 BC

  • Syphax withdrew as far as his capital, Cirta, where - wlink Cirta
Done.

Hannibal's return

  • In 203 Mago marched into - add BC

Initial dispositions

  • They would either be survivors of - They were either survivors of?
Done.
  • This third line is variously estimated at 12,000,[142] 15,000–20,000[133] or 20,000[143][144] strong by modern historians - "strong" hmm written like this those numbers maybe should be hyphenated (MOS:HANGING) to strong? But that'd be awful. Perhaps "The strength of this third line is variously... (and remove strong)
Replaced with "men". Does that work?

Initial charges

  • They were hunted down and killed at leisure. - sounds awfully chaotic for the word "leisure"? Don't know though what to suggest - at will, without restraint, spontaneously?
One can hunt leisurely. But tweaked to "They were subsequently hunted down and killed."

Decision

  • that's definitely Decision not Division?
Yes.
  • by sounding bugles and reformed their line. - does MilHist have a ruling on reform v re-form (form again)?
Wiktionary has as a usage example "The regiment reformed after surviving the first attack."
  • feeding new, fresh men into the fighting - "new" prob not necessary?
Replaced with "less-fatigued".

Notes

  • Note 5 "These elephants were typically about 2.5-metre-high (8 ft) at the shoulder"- I get very confused but is that adjectival? Seems okay to be ...These elephants were typically about 2.5 metres high (8 ft) at the shoulder. Definitely would be adjectival if... 2.5-metre-high (8 ft) shoulders. Trust your decision here.

Citations

  • fn 124 Taylor 2019, p. 317, 317 n. 24. - presume intentional ie content on that page and in its note
Yes. (Nice spot, but I do mean both.)
  • fn 149 SOED 1962, p. 2098. - is page number correct? (worldcat says volume is 1208 pages)
Lol. That is an exceptionally good catch of a typo - should be 1098

Sources

  • Collins, Roger (1998) - tweak alpha order
  • Hau, Lisa (2016) - tweak alpha order
Bleh! Both done.

Misc

  • Goldsworthy and Bagnall are linked in prose but not Champion, Hart nor Sabin
All linked.
  • War elephants - is linked twice beyond lede
Trimmed.

That's my lot, Gog. Ignore anything already addressed, JennyOz (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful stuff. Thank you Jenny. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog, (I just made 2 minor tweaks - undo at your pleasure!). Happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial edit

I'm coming in with the morning milk, I'm afraid, but I've been beaten to it. Several readings have still given me nothing to comment upon that would be especially useful to the article's improvement. I must advise in favour of the promotion of elephant dung also. SN54129 18:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fine time to come in, IMO. Thanks for reading through and for the support. Perhaps I should have nominated the elephant dung separately? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: this seems to be progressing nicely. Waiting for JennyOz to do their thing - which has me trembling in my sandals - and while A455bcd9 has yet to come back on the image review, it seems uncontentious. This being so, could I have permission to fire off another nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, dreadful shortage of articles in this area... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What causes you to suspect that my next nomination may be in a similar area?!
Call it a hunch...
Lucky guess! Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 10 May 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_Zama/archive1&oldid=1154677174"