Battle of Ibera has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 6, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Tunisia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (assessed as Low-importance). Phoenicia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

While it is obviously fine and factual that Ibera became Dertosa, I think the article needs to pick one name and stick with it. Essentially, on the first mention, explain the alternative name, but thereafter, always use one. At the moment, Ibera is used three times in the prose, and Dertosa four or five times. Note that we also have the article at Hibera, another little twist... Harrias ^talk 14:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, you fancy moving it to "Battle of Ibera"? Far and away the most common usage among the sources. A couple go with Dertosa - the older sources by the older authors - and Hoyos idiosyncratically uses Hibera. I decline to be responsible for what other editors write in other articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy doing it yourself? Harrias ^talk 14:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, I have always preferred to have other people do it for me. Looks as if that option has been removed. And: "experienced", fair enough; but if anyone else realises that you have described me as "trusted" you could be in trouble. I shall let you know how I get on. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went with 'trusted not to break anything on purpose' rather than 'trusted not to accidentally foul it up'... But you seem to have managed ;) Harrias ^talk 15:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 01:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting, and you recently reviewed one of my noms, so I'll give this one a look. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As always, willing to discuss any and all of these, as I'm probably wrong.

Lead

• I think you should directly state which war this was fought in somewhere in the lead. In fact, "Second Punic War" is only mention in the short description, the infobox, the references, and the navboxes.

Very good point. Fixed.

• " Both sides are reported to have suffered heavy casualties, the Carthaginians' may have been very heavy" - I'd use a semicolon instead of a comma here, not sure if this is a grammar thing or a stylistic preference though

Done.

Primary sources

• "Livy, who relied heavily on Polybius[8]," - punctuation before ref

Done.

Pre-war

• "The First Punic War was fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC struggled for supremacy primarily on the Mediterranean island of Sicily and its surrounding waters, and also in North Africa" - Something seems to have gone awry in this sentence

Yep - I messed up the punctuation. Try it now.

• " In spring 219 BC Rome declared war on Carthage." - I'm probably wrong/ignorant on this, but I thought that this happened in 218 BC? I was also taught the Lost Cause of the Confederacy as historical fact in school growing up, so the textbook's accuracy on pre-Christian event may be suspect, too.

War was formally declared on the floor of the Carthaginian Senate by the Roman Fabius. My 219 BC was a typo. Careless of me not to have picked it up on copy edit. Thanks for being on the ball.

Carthage invade Italy

• Link the Rhone

Done.

Opposing forces

• Skirmishers is overlinked

Fixed.

Aftermath

• Maybe fully introduce who Lazenby and Bagnall are? First mentions of them are just by last names. Bagnall also has an author-link, so you can link him

Oops. I think I edited out earlier mentions. Thanks. Fixed.

• "On at least one occasion the Scipios complained to the senate regarding this lack of reinforcement" - Should Senate be capitalized here, as it's referring specifically to the Roman Senate?

Debatable. Done, but I am honestly a bit unsure how the MoS applies here.

Nice work. Placing on hold. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm: thanks for that. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]