Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Great Plains/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) 31 March 2023 [1].

Battle of the Great Plains

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another from the Second Punic War, as the Carthaginian war effort falls apart. A certain lack of esprit de corps may be detected in this battle. The article shares many features with the immediately preceding battle of Utica. The article was overhauled and went through GAN in January. I hope that it will be favourably received here, if so I hope to shortly be bringing you the battle of Zama. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

edit

You know the drill, Gog. Comments to follow over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The ALT for the lead image doesn't seem to match the actual photograph?
I have removed "black and white".
  • Instead of template formatting like {{c.}} 30,000, can we have {{circa|30,000}}?
Sure.
  • Was Polybius more favourable to the Roman or Carthaginian side? This would change the meaning of the sentence "The near-contemporary historian Polybius considered this act of bad faith by the Romans to be the single greatest cause of war with Carthage..."
Nope. As Primary sources says "Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral as between Carthaginian and Roman points of view."
  • "In 210 BC Roman reinforcements stabilised the situation;[23] later that year Publius Cornelius Scipio,[note 3] arrived with further Roman reinforcements to take command in Iberia" Superfluous comma before note 3?
I am going for a little lie down.
I try not to make the same mistakes too many times. Instead I find new ones to make.
Done
  • "He was elected to the senior position of consul in early 205 BC, despite not meeting the age requirement" Do we know how old he was? That might be useful to briefly mention here.
Good point. Done.
  • Is there anything about Hanno on Wikipedia? Or shall it remain linkless?
There is nothing more about him anywhere. Linkless he shall remain.
  • You should be consistent with your usage of the Oxford comma: for instance, I see "here was also extensive fighting in Iberia, Sicily, Sardinia and North Africa", but then I see "Scipio assembled a vast quantity of food and materiel, merchant ships to transport it and his troops, and warships to escort the transports"
In the case you cite the commas are all needed for clarity. Eg, removing the last one has the merchant ships transporting their escorts.
  • "When word of the defeat reached Carthage there was panic, with some wanting to renew the peace negotiations" Do we know if "some" refers to general citizens, or was it lawmakers/government officials?
Senators. Added and sourced.
  • Do any sources state what "Africanus" means? As in, what does it translate to?
Of the first six I checked which mention it, no. The only one which says anything about it is Lazenby "... the first Roman general to be known by a name derived from the scene of his victories". The fact that no later sources seem to repeat this explicit claim makes me a little twitchy.
  • The title of Rawlings (1996) is not capitalised.
Oops. Fixed.

I think I've spotted more frequent comma usage in this article!

There is no need to be insulting.

By the way, I've recently spoken with my dear English professor, who informed me that my methods of commaisation, while not incorrect, are quite antiquated. I don't dare to ask how old you are, Gog, but certainly you write like a young person!

Lol. I imagine that I am older than you are.

Wonderful work on yet another Punic War article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ULL, all good points and all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I shall be glad to extend a support. Keep up the good work, lad. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are starting t sound very British. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really, now? I must being hanging around too many Brits... (looks at you and Dudley)
Wait. How did you know I was American? Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*smug smiley*

Funk

edit
Bleh, fixed.
  • Link names in captions?
I don't usually as I consider it dup linking. But if you prefer it, I will. Could you clarify what you mean by "names"?
I'd link Scipio, Second Punic War, and battle of Zama, to make it easy for the readers skimming the article to get an overview. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Thanks for dropping by Funk, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The near-contemporary historian Polybius considered" As I've repeated a couple of times, could be nice to note that he was Greek, to show impartiality.
I don't see how that would establish impartiality. Plenty of Greeks of the time disliked the Romans. Often for good reason. And I don't see how this would communicate what you think it would to the average reader. But added.
You agreed with the rationale when I brought it up long ago, the assumption being that being neither Roman nor Carthaginian, he would he would have less of an interest in . FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and equipped legion provided by their Latin allies; allied legions" This confused me a bit. By Latin allies, do we mean Latin-speaking people outside Rome proper, wouldn't they already be considered Romans due to being part of the empire?
There was no Empire. This was the Republic. There was a very sharp distinction between Romans and non-Roman ethnic Latins. Most of whom probably but not certainly spoke some dialect of Latin.
Makes sense, I'm not too strong on Roman chronology. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " who were not Carthaginian citizens. (Which was largely reserved for inhabitants of the city of Carthage.)" Shouldn't the period of the main sentence come after the parenthesis, and the first word in the parenthesis be de-capitalised? Probably a style variation I just don't know of.
To me that would look really odd. And it looks standard as it is. Given that the same phrase has gone through 11 FACs unchallenged, I think it's a style variation.
  • "close combat. (The latter were usually Numidians.)" Same, but pardon me if it's only sheer ignorance that I haven't seen this style before.
I had a similar issue with Unlimitedlead and we both ended up confused with the other's approach. Perhaps we could ask the scholar and guru of all things stylish Mr Riley to arbitrate? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could still be interesting to hear Tim out. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Libyans" to something?
Linked to something.
  • "Aged 31 was elected to the senior position of consul in early 205 BC" Missing "he" before "elected?
Bleh again. Sorry.
  • "But Roman commitment was less than wholehearted, Scipio could not conscript troops for his consular army" Missing "and" after the common, to show it is the result of the first part of the sentence?
In my use of English "and" would mean that the second part of the sentence was something additional to (and) and implicitly separate to the first. (Eg, ham and egg.) But it is easy enough to tweak. Does 'But Roman commitment was less than wholehearted: Scipio was not allowed to conscript troops for his consular army, as was usual, but could only call for volunteers.' work for you?
Yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Livy gives totals" Introduce him as Roman historian?
Apologies. I forgot I wasn't using an introductory sources section. Done.
Good stuff. Thanks FunkMonk, looking forward to the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Funk, appreciated as ever. I think I have covered everything outstanding from above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

Splendidly clear and readable article. It is my usual practice to put any article I review through a spell-checker, and I am enchanted to find that your "Hasdrubal Gisgo and Syphax" should be "Hasdrubal Gismo and Syphon". Or not. Be that as it may, here are a few quibbles, none consequential enough to prevent me from adding my support:

  • "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" – "eligible" sounds like a privilege. Perhaps they saw it that way − Dulce et decorum est and all that − but speaking as a proud holder of The Queen's Award for Cowardice I see them as "liable" rather than eligible. I do not press the point.
I have used the word in 17 prior FACs and it has not been picked up. But you are quite right. Changed.
  • "less than whole hearted" – the OED makes "wholehearted" a single word.
Hmm. Wholed.
Your "Hmm" sent me to the other dictionaries on my shelf. The Bloomsbury is with the OED, Collins ditto but admits a hyphenated alternative and Chambers hyphenates the word, but whatever way it ain't two separate words. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scipio could not conscript troops for his consular army, as was usual, only call for volunteers" – "only" is not a conjunction: you could do with a "but" in front of it.
Added.
  • "more than 90% were infantry" – I may be out of date – it is in fact my default position – but when last I looked, the MoS recommended "per cent" rather than "%" in the prose.
Which bit are you looking at? I was relying on "Write 3%, three percent, or three per cent".
Blimey! You're on your own there, laddie! I leave it to you. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was from the MoS. Delving a little deeper [!] Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers says "In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, percent (American English) or per cent (British English) are commonly used". "commonly used" huh? Ah well, changed. Serves me right for delving.
  • "individual centuries - the basic Roman army manoeuvre unit of 80 men - to exercises …" – you want spaced en-dashes rather than hyphens here.
Good grief! I don't know what came over me.
  • "Hanno and 1,000 of his men were killed or taken prisoner" – Hanno was killed or taken prisoner? Surely you know which?
I believe that he was in a SchroCatian state of indeterminacy. This has now collapsed.
  • "The size of both of these armies … have been questioned" – singular noun "size" wants a singular verb, "has"
Oops.
  • "stripped them of all of their overseas territories" – is the second "of" necessary?
Nope.

Pray consider these minor carpings, but I am happy to support the article for FA. It is clear, highly readable, balanced, evidently comprehensive without going on at length, well and widely referenced and well illustrated, even though Scipio has got no nose. Quomodo olet? Malodorus est. – Tim riley talk 14:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as ever Tim for keeping me on the straight and narrow. All of your comments addressed. The % one with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid stuff! Sorry to have raised and then dropped the % point. Would it be intolerably feline to ask if you are thinking about changing the "eligible" in the 17 articles you mention? Be assured I shall not pursue the point. Onwards and upwards to further top-notch Punic War articles. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to have to. Or else you will bring it up at every future Punic War review. % also changed, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Happy to leave my support clearly displayed so that the co-ordinators (you know what they're like) don't miss it. Tim riley talk 21:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Not too many images.

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Placeholder for now JennyOz (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, only some minor questions from me...

info box

  • Medjerda River - this name not mentioned in prose, change to Bagradas River per elsewhere?
Done.
  • image - I'm confused. Why is it named bust of Sulla? Is it another photo of same bust as that on Sulla which is captioned "Bust formerly thought to be of Sulla"? If it's Scipio, should it be renamed on commons? Do the refs in the infobox explain it?

lede

Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source. Personally I never believe anything I read on it. And don't get me started about Commons. Yes, the cites nail down as firmly as anything from 2,000 years ago is ever likely to be that it is Scipio. I hate putting cites in captions, but have had so many - entirely reasonable - queries on this that I have gone with them. Why an image "formerly thought to be of Sulla" is considered to be appropriate for the Sulla article I really would not like to say.
Agree, a weird one JennyOz (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gisgo spelling but Gisco elsewhere
Meh!
  • After a disastrous Roman setback in 210 BC (ie Baetis) but later "In 211 BC the Romans suffered a severe reverse at the battle of the Upper Baetis"
Hmm. I hadn't realised it could be read that way. Slightly rephrased to be less ambiguous.

Opposing forces

  • tightly-packed formation - no hyphen
Ah, "-ly". Removed.
  • if the other commander was - if one commander was?
Gone with "if either of the commanders".

Battle

  • while the Numidian cavalry under Masanissa were - Masinissa
*eye roll* I thought I had got all of those.
  • the battle opened with the cavalry on each flank charged - what does "charged" mean, ready to fight?
Sorry. Tjhat got mangled somewhere in the copy editing. Should read "the battle opened when the cavalry on each flank charged"

Notes

  • ...not Carthaginian citizens. (Which was largely reserved for inhabitants of the city of Carthage.) - Punc, ie not a sentence?
Ah. Nice spot.
  • Masinissa also married Syphax's wife, Sophonisba, Hasdrubal's daughter. - Bigamy normal? Had Syphax been killed after capture?
No, he died in captivity a year later. The sources don't directly comment on that aspect, but the founder of Rome (Romulus) married the already married woman Hersilia in the wake of the "rape of the Sabine women", so there seem to be traditional precedents which raised few eyebrows.

That's all from me, JennyOz (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful stuff. Just when you think you have nailed down all the corners, Jenny comes along and spots all of your silly errors. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good thanks Gog, very happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • All sources are of high quality. All are from the last thirty years, which is unusual for an article of this type.
  • Sources are well-formatted.
  • Spot checks: 55, 58, 61, 88 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Hawkeye7, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the co-ordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: Please sirs, can I have another one? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More...?! Oh all right. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 24 March 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_the_Great_Plains/archive1&oldid=1147595957"