Ancient Carthaginians again. Hannibal's father making his name during a nasty episode in a nasty war. This has been through a GAN and recently an A class review - with thanks to @Hog Farm, Buidhe, Zawed, JennyOz, and CPA-5:. I have given it a little additional work since, and believe that it may now approach the standard required for FAC. I invite your critical comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to split the second paragraph in the lead?
Done, but I don't personally like it.
Hamilcar and fellow general Hanno followed and in late 238 BC wiped them outMOS:EGG here.
I'm not seeing it. In what way might a reader be surprised to click through to an account of a battle in which the rebels are wiped out?
Optionaland their commander on Sicily agreed the Treaty of Lutatius --> "and their commander on Sicily agreed to sign the Treaty of Lutatius"?
No. He did agree to sign it, but he also, and more importantly, agreed it first.
and were thrown into a pit and buried alive.[26][29 Okay here we are again I don't believe unnassary citations like these should be here if a couple of sentences after this already uses these citations.
Removed.
the modern historian Adrian Goldsworthy describes this as "a gross oversimplification".[35] Same as above.
Removed.
had indigenous African forest elephants at the time.[note 3][40] Per this first citation and then note.
I can see no requirement, nor even a suggestion, as to which order they should go in. If I am missing it, entirely likely, could you quote the policy.
Well I don't think it's really called a policy. However, it uses the citation first and then the note as an example and since it's meant to help Wikipedians I assume we should follow it or otherwise it has no purpose.
Help:Explanatory notes#Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes explains how to use sfns and notes in the same article. It has to use one of the two possible alternatives when giving examples. But there is no indication that the one chosen is compulsory. If it was intended to be, surely that would be explicit; elsewhere when something is mandated the text is pretty clear. Even if it were explicit, which it isn't, this is a how-to guide, not a policy or even a guideline.
and they were massacred to a man. The rebel leaders were crucified in sight of their comrades --> "and they were massacred to a man. The rebel leaders were crucified insight of their comrades"
No. "Insight" means something completely different to "in sight".
Can you give me an example or two?
His destination is in sight.
I shall keep you in sight as I do not trust you.
They died in sight of each other.
He possesses an insight into his own condition
Einstein had some important insights.
Luxury brands are built on insights about customers' desired lifestyle.
After immense materiel and human losses on both sides Typo here?
Not that I can see. What were you thinking of?
Typo of material?
Ah! Wikt:materiel means "Military equipment, apparatus, and supplies."
Hanno's attitude towards tax raising from Carthage's --> "Hanno's attitude towards tax-raising from Carthage's"
Done.
rebel force under Spendius, which kept to rough ground --> "rebel force under Spendius, which kept to the rough ground"
I prefer it how it is. Rough ground hasn't previously been mentioned, so it would be inappropriate to talk of the rough ground; I am refering to rough ground geberally.
cause the Carthaginians supply problems --> "cause the Carthaginians to supply problems"
No, that would not be grammatical.
and either lure them onto ground of the rebels' --> "and either lure them onto the ground of the rebels"
Same issue as with "the rough ground".
On a thin pretext Hamilcar took Spendius, Autaritus, Zarzas and their lieutenants prisoner. Do we not need an apostrophe after lieutenants?
Good thought, but no - "their" has already established the possessive.
Was thinking double possessive here as in "their lieutenant's prisoner" you know the prisoner of the unnamed lieutenant or "their lieutenants' prisoner" as the prisoner of a couple of unnamed lieutenants. But I assume that's not the case.
Ah, again. If I meant Hamilcar took Spendius, Autaritus, Zarzas and the prisoner of their lieutenant/s prisoner then I would use one of your suggestions. But I don't, it is the actual lieutenants who are being taken prisoner. Does that make sense?
Is it possible to add another image in the sections "Opposing armies" or "Campaign"?
Done.
That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, that is very prompt of you. All of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, do my changes address your points? Is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have replied to some of your points. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5 and thanks. My round of responses to yours is above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, I was wondering if there was any more to come, or if you felt able to either support or oppose yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The Carthaginian army of 20,000 men on Sicily was evacuated to Carthage." Given that this is the first sentence in a section, I think it would benefit from some more context (why they were evacuated-- possibly "upon the end of the war" or something somewhat similar)?
Good point. Done.
"The discontent seemed to have abated when discipline broke down." to me this could read as "because discipline broke down the discontent seemed to have abated", when you probably mean more like "just as discontent seemed to have abated, discipline broke down" I think that could be clarified?
Rephrased.
"the Senate's negotiators were taken prisoner and their treasury was seized" the senate's negotiators had their treasury seized?
I am not sure if that is a question or a suggestion. If the former - yes - if the latter - I think that the negotiators being taken prisoner needs to be mentioned.
of Utica and Hippo (modern Bizerte)." Why does Utica not get a (modern equivelant)?
Because the modern equivalent is Utica, to which it is already linked. Same as with Tunis.
"He was shadowed by a superior-sized rebel force under Spendius, " is there a reason not to say "larger rebel force"?
No. (I was probably paraphrasing to avoid similar language to the source.) Changed.
"swapped sides with his 2,000 cavalry" perhaps it's just me, but I think this sentence could be a bit more explicit as to what sides were being swapped
OK. Done.
"ny further prisoners taken by the Carthaginians were trampled to death by elephants." I think this unnecessary because you already express it in more detail and context below
Removed.
Several duplinks are present, including Gaul and war elephant
My duplink tool is playing up. Are there others it/I has/have missed?
"The rebel situation was not sustainable," I think it worth reiterating their situation here
Done. Briefly, you will wish to check it.
"The rebel commanders led an effective campaign, but they could not match Hamilcar's experience." I think this sentence is redundant to what's already been expressed
I disagree. Up to that point I have talked about their experience. Surely at some point I need to tell the reader what actually happened?
". On a thin pretext Hamilcar " can you be any more specific?
It's one of those where I really need most of a paragraph to explain the details, or leave a reader wondering. It's not worht that many words, so I'll take it out; it's not a vital point.
"The rebels were massacred to a man" I'm personally not a fan of 'to a man'- I consider it an unnecessarily complex way to say 'without exception'
Interesting; when copy editing I tend to swap out "without exception". Gone for "All of the rebels were killed".
Great work as always, may have some further comments at a later date. Comments are minor, Eddie891TalkWork 21:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eddie891, your usual insightful set of comments. All addressed, including one where I have not gone with your suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, Happy with your responses. SupportEddie891TalkWork 19:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks excellent to me. Only a few comments, most of which are probably personal preference - Dumelow (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After immense materiel and human losses on both sides, the Carthaginians were defeated[2][3] and their commander on Sicily agreed the Treaty of Lutatius.[4] My understanding of MOS:CITEPUNCT is that the citation should follow the punctuation in all but a very limited set of circumstances.
I am not sure that I understand what change you are suggesting. My citations have been placed with "All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies", from the guidance you mention, in mind.
Perhaps WP:CITEFOOT is better: "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." But it's worded more as a suggestion and the last part of the statement muddies the waters. I've always put citations only after punctuation (and usually at the end of the sentence only) but see now that this is personal preference and maybe out of line with the guidance! - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used to group my cites more, but had several complaints from source reviewers that this made it difficult to verify my text. Now that I source review myself I can appreciate that, say, three cites at the end of a sentence when you only have access to two of the sources makes spot checking very difficult. So I try, but don't always remember (nor is it always possible) to attribute as close to the text referred to as I can. Or, to be more succinct, as you say: it is largely personal preference.
Several soldiers insisted that no deal with Carthage was acceptable, a riot broke out, dissenters were stoned to death, the Senate's negotiators were taken prisoner and their treasury was seized. Presumably this is a local treasury at Tunis? From the way that it is worded it could be construed as the Senate's main treasury (or maybe hat was at Tunis?).
The negotiators were despatched with sufficient cash to settle the back pay of 20,000 skilled men over several years. The sources strongly suggest that it was every bit of ready cash the Carthaginians could scrape together. This amount of state cash in one place and under the control of an official seems to me to meet the definition of treasury. I had hoped that the use of "their", ie the negotiators', would avoid any confusion with the broader use of "treasury" as a state treasury. But I am certainly not wedded to the word and would be happy to entertain alternatives.
For some reason I hadn't made the connection with money that was sent with the negotiators but it is obvious now - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mathos ordered two groups of rebels north to besiege the two main cities – other than Carthage – that had not already come over "come over" strikes me as a bit colloquial.
Well, a quick search of the one source I can access electronically throws up "come over" in this sense twice. But changed to "rebelled".
Hamilcar defeated a large rebel force at the Battle of the Bagradas River and then brought various towns and cities which had gone over to the rebels back to Carthaginian allegiance with varying mixtures of diplomacy and force. "various" and "varying" felt a bit repetitive to me
True. In fact I am not sure what "varying" adds, so removed and tweaked.
It might be beneficial to name some of the numbered locations/movements on the map to help the reader follow the adjacent text. For example, I had no idea where Bagradas River (5?) was in relation to the previously mentioned Carthage, Utica etc.
I got told off in a previous FAC for a non-concise caption with the same map! Good point. I have added captions for Bagradas and the campaign prior to the Saw. I am disinclined to add captions for, eg, the Battle of Utica - the 4 next to the crossed swords next to Utica should be comprehensible. See what you think.
Yes, that is helpful. As you say, I think the other movements/battles are obvious - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dumelow, this is very good of you. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dumelow, appreciated. A comment above continues our discussion on citation positioning. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"on a thin pretext he took the rebel leaders prisoner" - I see the prisoner piece in the text, but not the pretext?
Good spot. I removed it from the main article after discussion with Eddie891 above, but forgot to check to see if I had mentioned that in the lead. Now removed there as well.
Be consistent in whether you include locations for publications, and if so how these are formatted
I have included locations for all books but not for articles. I had not included a location for the encyclopedis article (Eckstein) but had otherwise messed it up - see next point. Location now included for this. The only discrepancy in formatting I can see is whether I have given the next level of geographic location. I have done so where there would be ambiguity if I just gave the first level. Eg there are two places named "Chichester" in the UK, plus one in Canada and one in the US. I have removed "California" from after "Stanford" on the grounds that the publisher being the university should remove ambiguity.
If it is some other formatting inconsistency I would be grateful if you could specify. Thanks.
Can you verify the Eckstein ref? The doi is not working and the details from the ISBN don't appear to match up
I made a mess of Eckstein altogether. It is an encyclopedia and I managed to mix and match with "cite book"! I had skipped the location because it was an encyclopedia, but the template is now reformatted and contains the location. The doi works for me.
Hm. Still not working for me - what's the link where you end up? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination could do with a prose review from someone who is not a military history regular, in particular to check for jargon, recherche language and general understandability to those not regularly accustomed to the specialist terminology of military history articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still needed, or do the reviews below suffice? FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very cleanly written. We disagree on commas, but I hesitate to add too many, having read Lynn Truss on the subject. I have a couple of prose questions and a couple of more general points.
How droll. I hadn't seen that before. Possibly a trifle harsh.
While the war with Rome was being played out: a little informal and a little imprecise -- I can't tell whether this means "During the war with Rome" or refers to the concluding phase of the war.
Changed to "During the last years of the war with Rome".
The news of a formed, experienced, anti-Carthaginian army: do we need "formed"? I can't see that it adds anything.
Ho, hum. OK, I am being both pedantic and technical. Excised.
There's almost no discussion of the ancient source(s). Different articles take different approaches to this problem; I've written articles such as Ælle of Sussex where the sources are so scarce and hard to interpret that a section on them is obligatory. I don't know that that's necessary here, but the article seems to express no doubts at all about the reliability of what facts it gives. That's fine if the historiography supports it but I wanted to check since I know that not every Roman historian is a neutral observer.
There is disagreement between reviewers as to whether a section on sources should be included at all. I have settled on a compromise - a personal one - of including them in articles on wars, but not on campaigns or battles. I could however lift the section on "Primary sources" from the FA Mercenary War and insert it with little tweaking if you feel that would be helpful. As you can see from reading that section, the main primary source is considered a paragon among ancient historians - this is solidly reflected in the secondary literature where virtually all of the debate is around how to interpret his summary style and little or none on his veracity or accuracy. Hence the "no doubts at all about the reliability of what facts it gives" feel to the article; if such doubts aren't in the secondary sources, there isn't a lot for a Wikipedia editor to say.
Yes, he seems ideal. I'll strike the comment but you might consider a footnote for this and other articles in which the sources are not explicitly discussed, placed at the first mention of Polybius and saying he is regarded as one of the most reliable ancient historians. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that less than half the article is specifically about the Battle of the Saw; everything in the body other than the "Campaign" section would need to be in other articles too, perhaps in more detail. Or am I misunderstanding what's specific to this battle? I had a look at some of the other Mercenary War articles and I am not necessarily arguing that this should be merged, just checking that there's a good reason for this article to be separate. Is the argument that separate battles, indexed separately in the sources, should have separate articles?
As there were six main battles in the relatively short Mercenary War (for comparison, there were four significant land battles - or arguably five - in the 23 years of the First Punic War) there is, it seems to me, inevitably going to be a fair bit of overlap around background and aftermath. That said, there are differences, usually significant, in the "War" and "Aftermath" sections as the chronology moves on. I am probably digressing. Yes, the argument is indeed that there is enough material in the sources to warrant an article for each of the six battles, the events leading up to it and the events immediately after it. One could, of course, make them more unique by removing some similar material - eg "Opposing forces" - but this would seem to pointlessly deprive a reader. Given our discussion above on sources there seems to be a case for introducing further non-unique text. Given that, for example, Hoyos bangs on for over 300 pages in Truceless War (including 21 specifically on the Saw campaign and battle) I don't think that six articles and a summary article is "milking" the sources. Obviously, other opinions may be available.
I have rattled on a bit there, apologies. Hopefully I have at least partially addressed your point.
I wasn't concerned that the articles were stretching out what the sources could supply, more checking how the division into subarticles was made. If the sources you're using go into that much detail then a separate article does seem warranted, and I take your point about the need to repeat context -- I don't think you could make the article any shorter. I think Wikipedia is inconsistent about this; we have separate articles on rulers who are no more than a name in a regnal list, which seems silly to me. Here I'd be more inclined to wonder if there's more you could add from the sources, but since I'm not familiar with them I'll trust your judgement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike, all good stuff. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I haven't read any of the previous Punic War series but found this works fine as a standalone article, and could find little to criticize. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
infobox "Spendius, Zarzas, Autaritus" - are commas intended?
No. Removed.
years BC - MOS only says "It is advisable to use a non-breaking space." Your call.
I'm not a fan, but added.
The news of an experienced, anti-Carthaginian army in the heart of its territory spread rapidly and many cities and towns rose in rebellion. - ambiguous? rebelled against or with the mutineers? Sorry, I just don't understand why locals sided with the mutineers who were "in the heart of its territory". They were peeved re taxes same as Mathos so joined in?
Yes. I thought that was clear, but obviously not. I have added a "caused" to clarify the causality.
rebels with his 2,000 cavalry and joined Hamilcar - move the cavalry link up to first mention at "from the rebels, 2,000 cavalry, and 70 elephants"
Ah! Done.
deserted the rebels with his 2,000 cavalry and joined Hamilcar. - maybe 'taking' instead of "with"? or and 'they' joined Hamilcar?
Gone with "they".
subordinates, notably the Gaul Autaritus - dab the Gaul link to Gauls? (so that, see my next point...)
Oops. Done.
Both Iberia and Gaul provided - now link Gaul?
And done.
Hanno was recalled to Carthage - why? to 'defend' Carthage?
Because he was an idiot who should never have been allowed to run around with a loaded army. I could lift in the couple of sentences to sketch in the political, military and personal reasons: " In mid-239 BC, he was joined by Hanno and his army, but the two men disagreed as to the best strategy and operations were paralysed. Unusually, the choice of the supreme commander was put to a vote of the army – possibly only the officers – and Hamilcar was elected; Hanno left the army." But it seems to be "going into unnecessary detail" to me. But I am not too bothered if you disagree.
Giggle. Yes I first read it that he was basically sacked but then when I got to "10,000 defenders of Carthage under Hanno", I reconsidered and thought maybe he'd been specifically sent to defend it. No problem and no need to add anything. Between you and Bagnall I see why the demotion.
leaving the 20,000-man-balance of their force - not sure second hyphen necessary?
No. Well, you have read my essay where I confess my helplessness with hyphens. Removed.
operate effectively.[45] and harassed - swap full stop to comma (or remove)
Should have been a comma. Done.
account of a months-long campaign of - "a months" sounds singular ie one month (yes even though there is no apostrophe) so maybe 'the months-long'? Or, if available a 2-3 months-long for example. Or an adjective after "a" would help eg 'a busy/active/shifting months-long'. I do note you say the sources are confusing though.
Changed "a" to "the subsequent".
Perfect!
likeness of their outline to the tool. - do sources say to the tool's teeth?
No. Almost certainly because the primary source giving this name doesn't. "around the place called The Saw; which acquired this name due to the similarity of its appearance to the tool so called."
as "unhelpful" to the rebels and any attack was clearly hopeless - whose attack, rebels? maybe 'any attack by them'
In this case I am referring to the contents of the baggage train, the actual baggage, not the train.
including every Carthaginian citizen of military age - every male citizen?
Redundant. Women weren't citizens.
Now, about the latest edit (15 Jan) which changed text and wlink to "Northern Africa had indigenous North African elephants at the time". The wlink for the elephants changed from African forest elephant to North African elephant. It appears the forest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis) is a living species. The North African elephant (Loxodonta africana pharaohensis) is an extinct subspecies of the living African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana). But that newly linked North African elephant's lede says "Other names for this animal include the North African forest elephant, Carthaginian elephant, and Atlas elephant". (my underline)
That was a good faith drive-by edit. A consequence of Mercenary War being TFA on the 15th I think. I usually leave TFA edits a few days before tidying them up, and that was on my to do list. There is grave doubt as to whether the North African elephant ever existed as a distinct sub-species, the Wikipedia article notwithstanding. (I have had this conversation before.) I have switched it back to how it was. That OK? (Don't you hate drive bys who change things to what they think makes sense and leave a phrase which is contradicted by the source?)
Well, as you say "good faith" but naughty- I don't know how you prolific article writers have time to also be vigilant stewards.
Do sources clarify this is the correct species/subspecies?
Certainly the text now looks odd with "Northern Africa had indigenous North African elephants at the time". It could possibly appear better (to ease the rep) if changed to 'Northern Africa had indigenous forest elephants at the time' (or similar).
That's me. Pls let me know if I haven't explained my confusions enough! JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's great [User:JennyOz|Jenny]], thank you. Your comments to date all addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good Gog. I've added a few replies above but no further clarifications needed so am happy to add my support. JennyOz (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.