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 October 2020 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the long-drawn-out bloodbaths of the first two Punic wars the Romano-Carthaginian conflict ended with this war and the complete destruction of the city of Carthage and the death of most of its population; the survivors were enslaved. For what it was worth, they went down hard. This article received a good poking at at GAN and I believe that it is potentially up to FA standard. Any and all comments will be gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Primary sources. I'm just going to comment on this section for the moment. I'll deal with the rest later. I think it needs significant changes, as it is mostly issued from articles on the First Punic War, but things are different for the Third one.
• "The main source for almost every aspect of the Third Punic War". Not really. Polybius' books on the Third Punic War only survive in fragments (books 36 and 38, 37 is entirely lost).
• Livy's books also end in year 166 BC. Two other major sources: Dio Cassius and Diodorus Siculus are also lost for this period, as well as Plutarch's Life of Scipio. In fact, the most important ancient author on the 3PW is Appian, a Greek living the 2nd century AD, who is known for making damning mistakes (although he apparently used Polybius for his book, cf. Goldsworthy pp. 22-23). As a result, the 3PW is the least known of the three PW, and I would say this ("The 3PW is the least known of the three PW, because of the loss of the two most important historians of the Roman Republic, Polybius and Livy, for the years dealing with the war. Appian is the only surviving author that left a full narrative of the events, but his reliability is often in question, etc. Polybius still survives in fragments etc."). Many questions on the war cannot be answered because of the sparsity of the sources (typically the reasons for the Roman agression).
• Then, it is also necessary to balance the statement that Polybius is reliable, because Polybius' fragments on these years deal a lot with Scipio Aemilianus, who was Polybius' patron and friend. Therefore, Polybius is often biased in his favour; he unfairly berates Scipio's opponents several times (see Astin's statement in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 8, p. 5). This is not a problem for past events, but it is quite important for contemporary ones. Walbank says that Appian's text, which derives from Polybius, "has many of the marks of a panegyric on Scipio" (vol. III, p. 662). In short, you need to tell more about Appian, detail the loss of the sources, and balance your statement on Polybius. T8612 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Gog the Mild, did you miss these comments? I can do a source review but it would probably work best if I waited until you got to these. (t · c) buidhe 18:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, yes, I missed this. Thanks for the nudge. T8612, apologies for the delayed response, I am currently on a family holiday and a certain amount of participation is expected. Plus the last place we stayed at the WiFi went down and I had a very limited mobile data. I am now back up and have read your comments, but don’t have the sources I need; in particular I have lost my link to Walbank! Which is a bit of a handicap. The earliest I am going to be able to come back to you is the 27th, possibly later. If you feel that it would be appropriate for me to withdraw this nomination, I would quite understand. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Thank you for your considerable patience on this. I have heavily edited the "Primary sources" section along the lines you indicated. I would be grateful for your views on the revised version. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that's much better. I'll continue the review tomorrow.

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Two short remarks:
• I see that you have included the footnote about Punic in the text, but I find it a bit awkward to have such a long parenthesis in the beginning of the text. Is there a better way to place it?

In the text at Borsoka's request. I'm not sure that it is not better as a note. I have moved it out of parentheses and into the start of "Background", where I think that it fits as well as anywhere if it is going to be in the text. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus". Diodorus Siculus means Diodorus of Sicily in Latin, so you don't have to say "Sicilian Greek" before, the English form "Diodorus of Sicily" also exists.

I'm trying to have it both ways, aren't I? Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Carthage and Rome fought the 17-year-long Second Punic War between 218 and 201 BC. I would mention both the 1PW and 2PW.

Done

• I think we need a map with Numidia here.

Added.

• The second paragraph details the building up that led to the war, but only from the Numidian side. You ignore the Roman point of view. The famous word by Cato the Censor Carthago delenda est ought to be mentioned here, as well as the Roman embassies that were sent to Carthage. I would also mention that the war was opposed by Scipio Nasica Corculum, the son-in-law of Scipio Africanus. The fact that Cato had to repeat his sentence in every speech is a proof that his opinion was in minority in the senate.

As is often the case we have a difference as to the level of detail appropriate regarding the minutae of Roman domestic politics. A FAC is required to meet "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." The detail you suggest may be appropriate for an article on the Causes of the Third Punic War, but not, IMO, for this one. I could see the point (just) in unpacking "Nevertheless, elements in the Roman Senate had long wished to destroy Carthage, and, using the illicit Carthaginian military action as a pretext" a little, although I doubt what a reader might gain from it; but not to the extent you suggest.

• The problem in academic sources is that there is no consensus as to why Cato was so obsessed about destroying Carthage, and why the rest of the senate followed him. The ancient sources don't make sense; they say Rome felt threatened by Carthage, but it was hardly a threat; it couldn't even defend itself against Massinissa. There have been a number of alternative theories: (a) Mommsen developed an economic argument: Carthage was an economic competitor to Rome (hence was Cato brought fresh figs from Carthage in the Senate) (b) a Machiavellian argument: the Romans wanted to prevent Massinissa from building a huge empire in Africa and so had to take Carthage before him (c) an imperialist argument: after the defeat of Macedon in 168, Rome became a power-hungry state that conquered lands at the first opportunity (no more "defensive wars") (d) individual ambition: conquering Carthage would bring immense fame and fortune to the Roman general (Astin wrote an article in which he said Scipio Aemilianus sabotaged the peace negotiations between Massinissa and Carthage because he expected to be part of the incoming war, sadly he withdrew this idea in a later statement). I suggest you include information from this article by Ursula Vogel-Weidemann, which summarises the debates [she separates the immediate causes of the war and the longer reasons]. She suggests that Rome made a pre-emptive war to avoid the possible reemergence of Carthage as a rival, while Rome was waging wars on several fronts at the time: in Spain and in Macedonia (the Fourth Macedonian War) [it seems to be Goldsworthy's argument too]. W.V. Harris in th CAH still uses the economic argument (p.156). Interestingly Le Bohec in Hoyos' Companion to Punic Wars rejects all argument and seems to return to the ancestral fear of Carthage developed by ancient authors.

I refer to my response above. I simply don't find this, admittedly fascinating, content relevant, in this level of detail, to this article. The fact that there seems to be more theories than proposers and nothing even approaching a consensus makes me even less inclined to feel that a reader of this topic will find them either relevant or of interest.

By all means write an article on Causes of the Third Punic War or, better, Possible explanations for Roman involvement in the Third Punic War, but what, IMO, is needed here to meet criterion 4 is a one or two sentence summary.

I wish I had the time. I think it's possible to fit everything into a small paragraph. I've done a demo here. T8612 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 Frankly I find it a pointless addition, but I am just one editor so I shall work it in. Give me some time to source it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done - at least a first draft. I have tried to work it a bit more holistically into the flow of the article. (Plus some sources I consulted flatly contradicted some of the stuff in your draft[?]) Hopefully I have retained both the intent and spirit of your suggestion. See what you think.

That will do. What was contradicting?

• I think the wealth of the propositions shows that there is no consensus, so I would list the above arguments, saying that none of these explanations has reached consensus. Then I would tell about the debate between Cato and Scipio Nasica, and their embassies. See what I wrote here too (as an aside, I paused writing on this article as the literature was really confusing).

Well quite; so why inflict this confusion on a reader - at, it seems to me, to do it justice, possibly greater length than the whole of the rest of the article.

• There is ground to explain internal politics in Carthage too. It seems easier: the constant one-sided Roman policy in favour of Massinissa led to the dominance of the "democratic" faction which pushed for the war, with Carthalo and Hamilcar the Samnite (see CAH, pp. 149-150). T8612 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Again I am not completely adverse to expanding this a little - although the current amount of information on the internal politics of Carthage is my personal preference - but this, again IMO, should be limited to a maximum of an additional sentence or two.

Hi T8612: responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the 17-year-long Second Punic War between 218 and 201 BC. I would introduce Scipio Africanus here, as you mention him in aftermath without telling who he was. (sth like "-after the victory of Scipio Africanus at the Battle of Zama.").

Instead of in the footnote, as now? I'll transfer it up and we can see if it reads better. (I was mostly concerned about flow.) Done.

• It was the long-standing Roman procedure to elect two men each year It was not just a "procedure", but the Roman constitution. I think it's better to say "The Romans elected two consuls every year, each received the command of an army; they could have their command extended for several years as proconsul." I mention the promagistracy here, because Scipio was prorogued as proconsul in 146 BC.

Done. Although using slightly different words.

T8612 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Borsoka wants to include mention of a consul's other duties. I have tweaked. See what you both think.

Good.

• Manius Manilius commanding the army and Lucius Censorius, it's Lucius Marcius Censorinus.

What a stupid typo - I am not even consistent. Thanks. Fixed.

If you want to shorten the name, I would prefer "Marcius Censorinus", then either Marcius or Censorinus. If you wish, you can say that Manilius was a good friend of Scipio Aemilianus, member of the Scipionic Circle.

Do you have a source? Miles, the CAH and Goldsworthy all abbreviate to just Censorinus after their first mentions.

I don't think you need for a source for that, use the most distinctive between praenomen/nomen/cognomen. Censorinus seems appropriate here. Sometimes it can be the praenomen too (especially with rare praenomina like Appius or Caeso). T8612 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the consuls made the further demand that, only Marcius did so. Frustratingly, the Cambridge Ancient History just says "to receive the consul's final demand." (singular). This article gives his name (p. 20). (As an aside, the arms given by Carthage were collected by Nasica Serapio, and Scipio Hispallus, son and nephew of the Nasica opposed to the war. There has been speculation that this demand, as well as Marcius', were last chance requests to avoid the war from Nasica and his friends.)

I had assumed that he was speaking on behalf of both of them - I mean, obviously only one of them actually said it. Goldsworthy's "Censorinus, elected first by the comitia, probably older and a better speaker, spoke in answer" strongly suggested this, and the CAH not giving a name seemed to support this. Nevertheless, tweaked.

• Coming back to the primary sources section, Le Bohec in Hoyos' Companion is very critical of Polybius (pp. 430-431). "I would object that the reputation of Polybius is totally undeserved, for this Greek showed no objectivity when he spoke of the Carthaginians and the Romans."

I know. Consensus is not the same as unanimity. I keep hoping to come across another reputable opinion which speaks badly of Polybius to give myself something more interesting to say about him. As it is Le Bohec just seems a rogue outlier.

T8612 (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612:: thanks for that; addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Any further input on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I've been busy. Will continue tomorrow. T8612 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• with a population estimated at 700,000 Harris in the CAH 8, p. 147 says it is "impossibly high". I think Miles reused the number given by Strabo. Hoyos likewise says "The total is impossible for the city alone" (Hannibal's Dynasty, p. 28), but adds it may have included the surrounding territories. Estimations for the city are between 125000 to 300000. T8612 (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shall copy my response to Borsoka below:

I agree. A total population of 50,000 would have made Carthage (the city) impressive. Earlier in the article I write "The city of Carthage itself was unusually large for the time, with a population estimated at 700,000." This is based on Miles "the 700,000 inhabitants of Carthage just before its fall". In context it is very clear that he is referring to just the city. It boggles me, but as Miles is a very respected academic and this is from the only full length history of Carthage in English that I am aware of I don't consider that it is for me to OR about it. Hoyos - another impeccable modern scholar - quotes Strabo as "70 myriads of men [ie persons] in the city" in 149 BC. Square brackets in Hoyos. Ie, 700,000; which I assume is what Miles is relying on. Hoyos also discusses modern estimates of the population in the third century BC, ie some 70 years earlier, where a wide range of estimates go as high as 400,000. Allowing for 70 years population growth ... A very rough calculation based on the known size of the city in 149 BC suggests that a population of 700,000 would have 150-200 square metres each, so it is not physically infeasible.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reference for Hoyos? I've checked his book The Carthaginians and he too says there: "It was in this last period that the city’s population, according to Strabo, numbered 700,000. So great a throng could never have lived within the walls, while Megara was mostly a garden suburb, but Strabo may have mistaken a credible figure representing both city and chora as applying to just the city (or expressed himself badly)." (p. 210). T8612 (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Hannibal's Dynasty 2003 p. 225. (It's in the appendix, section 3.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Hoyos doesn't give his opinion here, but makes a summary of all the population estimates for Carthage. His own position is given in page 28 (where he says "The total [700,000] is impossible for the city alone"). Hoyos does add that *some* scholars have accepted the figure of 700,000, but it's not a consensus (as often in ancient history). He cites Werner Huß (1985), but not Miles; he also says that Ulrich Kahrstedt estimated the population at 125,000 (a number he finds "implausibly low"). Apparently Walter Ameling went as low as 90.000. Read it again. I would say something like that: "Estimations for the population of Carthage have widely differed among modern scholars—from 90,000 to 800,000 people—depending on the interpretation of a number given by the Greek geographer Strabo, who tells that Carthage had "seventy myriads of men in the city". Any of these estimations would still make Carthage one of the most populous cities of the Mediterranean area." Then cites Hoyos Hannibal's Dynasty p. 225 who makes a good summary of the literature.T8612 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @T8612: Good thinking. I have gone with a slightly abbreviated version of your suggestion. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to add the date of Poynter's painting (1868)?

Of course. Done.

• Can you give the full name for Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus? Because there were many homonyms at the time. You also find Calpurnii Pisones consuls in 139, 135 and 133.

Done.

• I would mention the Lex Villia, which set the age requirements for public offices. Perhaps as a link on "age requirement". Another requirement for the consulship was to be a former praetor (which Scipio had not been too). (In fact this requirement was established after Flamininus had been elected consul at 29 years old in 198.)

The first suggestion would get jumped on as an Easter egg. And I am not sure that either is close enough to the topic to merit inclusion. (I could add 'and did not meet other requirements' if you think that would be helpful.

• You can also add that Scipio also broke the rules by receiving his command from the people. Normally, foreign commands were distributed between the two consuls by lot (so Livius, the other consul, could have received the conduct of the war in Africa if the standard procedure had been respected).

Again, getting, IMO, a little off topic, but I have briefly summarised the point.

• Finally, I would mention that his military successes since the beginning of the war made Scipio look like a successor of Scipio Africanus, on whose fame he was able to play to be elected consul. The source for these events is AE Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford UP, 1967, pp. 61-69. Tell me if you need the pdf. [OR: it seems to me that the legend that only a Scipio could win in Africa comes from this election, and from Scipio. One century later, Julius Caesar put (nominatively) at the head of his army a man named Scipio, because his enemy in the Civil War was Metellus Scipio. Both were related (we don't know how exactly), and the war was waged in Africa. Caesar knew that his men were nervous about fighting a Scipio in Africa, because the legend had survived.]

Most of that added.

• There is a mistake in the name of "Mancinius". His name is Lucius Hostilius Mancinus. (He was an enemy of Scipio, and it seems that Polybius gives a negative account of him because of that.)

D'oh!. Fixed.

T8612 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: All responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You forgot to change the name for Calpurnius Piso: it's Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus.

It is already done at first mention in the main article, and that is the link for the infobox. Where else would do you think it should go.

Ah yes, it's because you linked it a second time below, so I thought it was the first mention.

• For the mention of the Lex Villia, perhaps say something like this: "for which the minimum age requirement was 41, as stated in the Lex Villia".

This, and some of the points below, seem to me to be close to or over the "going into unnecessary detail", which is usually why they are not in the article already. Obviously this is a subjective matter at the margin, so Lex Villia included.

Thanks.

• After "which successfully breached the walls", I would place here that the first to climb the wall was the young Tiberius Gracchus. Ref: TRS Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. I, p. 464.

I really think that this is getting too "going into unnecessary detail" for all but diehard afficiadados.

Reading it again, you're right for this article. I will ask it again for Siege of Carthage though (if you wish to move it to FAC).

Fair enough.

• I think you don't write enough on the settlement of Africa at the end of the war, with ten commissioners appointed to supervise the annexation, ordered by a law of Livius, the consul of 147. Harris in the CAH summarises this nicely. Carthage also became ager publicus (eg. the land directly belonged to the Republic); this is important for the reforms of Gaius Gracchus explained below.

Added.

• Harris adds that the destruction of Carthage also resulted in the annihilation of the Punic culture. Notably, the books of the library of Carthage were given to the sons of Massinissa (who had just died), except one book of Mago (soon translated into Latin by Decimus Junius Silanus).

As with many of the views in the CAH, the old timers are not always in full agreement with more modern accounts. Eg, Le Bohec p. 443 "For all that, Punic culture did not disappear. It survived while transforming itself, and present-day historians call it “Neo-Punic civilization.” It was indeed alive, and the Roman state never forbade it."; p. 445 "From the ruins of the city was born a new Africa, Roman Africa, which never denied the cultural heritage of Carthage"; Goldsworthy, p. 357, says much the dame, less directly, summarising "The Romans had not fought to destroy Punic Culture"; Fantar p.454 "But Punic civilization did not disappear with the destruction of Carthage and the elimination of the Carthaginian state in 146 BC", indeed, his whole "Punic Culture after 146" is worth reading in this context.

You're right, I've oversimplified; Harris does say Punic religion and language survived. Perhaps you could include what you just said above? T8612 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• Before the sentence on the refoundation of Carthage by Caesar. I would mention that Gaius Gracchus tried to found a colony there as Colonia Junonia in 123. It was part of his agrarian reforms but he was murdered before the project could be realised. Ref is Andrew Lintott, Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 9, p. 78-79. (tell me if you want the pdf).

I have the info, thanks - I made a judgement call that this was unnecessary, but will now include it.

• Then, Caesar wanted to refound Carthage and Corinth, destroyed the same year as Carthage. I would mention this similarity too. However, these colonies were only planned by Caesar; he died before their refoundation, which was carried by the Second Triumvirate. Ref from Elizabeth Rawson, CAH, vol. 9, p. 446-447.

I don't see the relevance of what other towns Caesar wanted to found or refound. Hmm, Miles p. 363, says that work did start under Caesar - carried out by Statilius Taurus - although he agrees that possibly not much work was done. He says that the project was resuscitated and completed by Augustus, starting in 29 BC, so I have amended accordingly.

• In order to further distinguish between this article and Siege of Carthage, I think it would be a good idea to mention the tears of Scipio over Carthage burning, possibly the most famous event of the war. I would prefer to place it in Siege of Carthage though.

Good point. I have boldly added to the Siege article. See what you think. (None of the first three sources I consulted mention the famous tears!) Could you put any comments on that article's talk page? Courtesy ping to Harrias, who assessed that article for GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: More good stuff, thanks. All responded to. How is it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Good additions to the last section. Some points though:
• "In 123 BC a populist faction", I think it's better to write "the Populares faction", as well as "Optimates faction". Because "populist/traditionalist" are a bit judgmental and very controversial. Link these terms too.

"Populist" was a paraphrase of the source's (Miles) "reformers"; I have changed it to "reformist", per the source. Traditionalist seems both accurate and a reasonable paraphrase of the source's "conservatives". Both linked as suggested.

• Link Colonia Junonia.

Done. (It is amazing what Wikipedia has stubs on!)

• Remove ", led by Scipio,", he was already dead by that time.

I didn't mean that Scipio, but you are correct - obviously - that I need to introduce him fully or not at all. So removed as an unecessary distraction for the reader.

T8612 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the picture "Ruins of Carthage in 2006", are you sure it shows the ruins of Punic Carthage and not Roman ruins? I had tried to find such pictures but couldn't be sure as well.

No. I had been AGFing re the poster. I don't know it of my own knowledge. I shall have a look at the UNESCO site and see what they have.

The more I look into this, the less convinced I am that there are any free use photos of unambiguously Carthaginian remains. Which is a shame. That said, the image is in the aftermath section, where much of the discussion is about attempts to set up Roman Carthage so I don't think that a reader will necessarily expect the image to be of the Punic era ruins. I could swap in File:Quartier Punique.JPG which is specifically of part of the Punic Quarter, although I am still not certain that it is not of the Roman era Punic Quarter.

• "The opposing, minority, faction included Scipio Nasica". I would remove ", minority" as we don't know numbers in the Senate; however the fact that Cato had to repeat his famous words in every speech indicates he was in the minority.

It's what the source says, but checking some others there seem to be a range of modern opinions on this. So deleted. Thanks for picking it up.

T8612 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T8612: I have addressed all of your points and you may wish to have a look at them while I try to check out the provenance of the photo. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. If you want, you can replace it or add this coin of Carthage (its last issue). T8612 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Done. What next? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't want to add the coin? T8612 (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Apologies, I swapped the other image and thought that I was done. Well reminded. Coin image included; up near where we talk about Carthage's prosperity. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added a source if you think it's necessary. T8612 (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting now. @Gog the Mild: perhaps you want to format the ref in the caption for the coin though. T8612 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How is the gallery more beneficial in this article than one or two images of the ruins?

Removed.

• File:Carthage.png: I'm a bit confused by the attribution here - what component of this came from Livius, and what was the permission granted?

I may have been/be confused/wrong as to what goes in each section. The map is copied from Livius.org, about half way down. The information within it is the same as that in Goldsworthy p. 341, but is probably redundant and so I have removed it.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria: Thanks for looking at this, and apologies for the time taken to respond to you. I believe that I have now addressed both of the issues you raised. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria: How are things looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still confused about Livius. The site has an 'all rights reserved' notice; what permission was given for use and where is that recorded? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Firstly, apologies; secondly, I am an idiot. I persisted in seeing what I wanted to see on the page - or not even bothering to check whether it was or not what I wanted to see - long past any reasonable point. You are of course correct that the map seems to be a straight lift from Livius. I have no idea why this was not clear to me.

I have commissioned a fresh and original map - big thanks to Harrias - which is loosely based on similar maps in two separate, paper RSs. Hopefully this does, actually address your concerns. Let me know if you would like me to email you copies of the two hard copy pages. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, pls let me know when you can if this satisfies the image check. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I'll suggest to Gog that it would be helpful for that new map to be displayed slightly larger, but the licensing is now sorted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, do you mean the map of the city? If so, I think that I would need to move it out of the infobox to enlarge it. Is this what you mean?

If you mean the map of Numidia, I agree and have enlarged it slightly. Cheers, and thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks guys, happy for any fine-tuning to take place post-promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC by Adrian Goldsworthy a reliable source? I am not sure the book was peer-reviewed.

It is about as reliable as you get. It certainly meets WP:RS. Books are not usually peer reviewed, but it has been well reviewed; eg here (paywall).

I did not find a single review about the book at JSTOR. I am not convinced that Phoenix publishes scholarly books and Goldsworthy seems to be the writer of popular histories. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsworthy is not an academic and his book doesn't bring anything new, but he has made good use of the academic literature. His book can be seen as representing the academic consensus on the subject. T8612 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like a FA in WP? :) I think we need further references to verify each statement based on his book. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very bold suggestion. You are saying that Goldsworthy should not be used at all. Can I ask what policy or guideline you are basing this on?

Like many scholars Goldsworthy writes some fiction - clearly labelled as such - as well as non-fiction - also well labelled. The copy I use was published by Phoenix, an imprint of Orion Books. A glance at their Wikipedia article would suggest a very reputable publisher. I note in passing that Goldsworthy has had at least four non-fiction books on Roman history published by Yale University Press.

Thank you. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I continue the review assuming that Goldsworthy's book is a reliable source. Borsoka (talk)

• The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry. Could the term be introduced in the main text?
• His works include a now-lost manual on military tactics... Is this relevant in the context?

I am trying to establish Polybius's military expertise, so I think yes.

• ...he is now known for The Histories, written sometime after 146 BC. Do the cited sources verify the sentence?

In the light of T8612's comments above I am working on a rewrite of the "Primary sources" section, which hopefully will address that point and several of those below, which I am trying to work in.

• Consider mentioning that now The Histories is a fragmentary work.

Does "In addition, significant portions of The Histories' account of the Third Punic War have been lost" - given that the article is on the Third Punic War - cover this?

• He accompanied the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus during his campaign in North Africa which resulted in the storming of Carthage and Roman victory in the war. 1. Maybe this info should be presented soon after Polybius' introduction because this is the reason his work is the most important source of the war. 2. Here I would only say that Polybius accompanied the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus to North Africa during the Third Punic War, without mentioning the consequences of the war.
• Polybius was an analytical historian and wherever possible personally interviewed participants, from both sides, in the events he wrote about. Do Shutt and Goldsworthy verify this statement?
• ..analytical historian.. Source?
• The accuracy of Polybius's account has been much debated over the past 150 years, but the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value, and the details of the war in modern sources are largely based on interpretations of Polybius's account. I understand Tipps writes of the relibiality of Polybius's account of the Battle of Ecnomus in the First Punic War.
• The modern historian Andrew Curry sees Polybius as being "fairly reliable"; When stating this, Curry only writes of a specific naval battle.

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, and thanks for this start. An interim response above, with more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the ISBN for Miles (2011) correct ([2])?

I am looking at the hardcopy and that's what is printed in it. I would be happy to scan and email you a copy.

• Is this a Kindle edition or e-book? Thank you, I do not need a copy. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No.

OK. I found the book at Open Library ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes 3 and 4 seem problematic. 1. One of the cited sources, Lazenby (1996), covers the First Punic War, while the notes provide information in relation to the Second Punic War. 2. Scullard (2006) is obviously not correct. 3. What about consolidating the two notes?

• I have consolidated the notes as suggested.
• Scullard: You are quite right. I meant to refer to Scullard 1989 (The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume VII). However, as this merely duplicates Lazenby, I have removed the cite.
• Lazenby: I am not sure that it matters which war is being referred to when the conversion rate is established. Anymore than, for example, establishing that a 24-pound cannonball weighed 10.9 kg in 1789 by referring to source discussing such things in 1748. Or today. If I were to state that a 24-pound cannonball weighed 10.9 kg at the Battle of Trafalgar It would be odd, IMO, if a reviewer were to insist on a cite which stated exactly this, and would not accept that the same was true at the Battle of the Nile, or forty years earlier, or later. (Lazenby 1998 p. 19 could also be used to establish a convertion rate, if you prefer a work on the Second Punic War.)

• As far as I can remember conversion rates could change from region to region and time to time. The statement that "The ones referred to in this article are all Euboic (or Euboeic) talents, of approximately 26 kilograms (57 lb)." can hardly be verified by a reference to Lanzeby's book, taking into account the different contexts. We can state that the article accepts Lanzeby's conversion rate if none of the books about the Third Punic War determine it. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka I dropped by to comment that I have made changes to the "Primary sources" section which I believe mean that your outstanding comments above are now moot. Thanks for helping to spur me into the rewrite. I have a couple of RL issues, but will try to get back to these points later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your edits. I must admit that the change relating to the relibiality of Polybius' account seems to be quite radical for me ([4]). Could you read and double check the whole article? Please ping me if you think the review could be continued. Consider also seeking advice on Goldsworthy's reliability in the light of the above comments on him. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, yourself and T8612 seemed to be requesting radical changes, and so I made them. Is there anything about the current section which you think should be changed.

• The new version looks fair. When writing of a radical change above, I only referred to Polybius's introduction: in the previous version, he was described as a neutral historian, no his bias towards the Romans is mentioned. That is why I thought the article should be double-checked.

• I will double check the whole article as you request and ping you once I have.
• Borsoka: I think that the review should be continued. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I will continue the review.

• I have no doubts as to Goldsworthy's reliability. I have not as yet sought advice as I would not know what to ask; which policies or guidelines cause you to doubt this work's reliability?

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:Source. I have not found a review about his book cited in the article at JSTOR; Goldsworthy is not an academic as T8612 mentioned above; and the Orion Publishing Group quite obviously publishes popular literature ([5]). For instance, Steven Tibble is a well-known specialist among people who regularly read books about the crusades. Tibble is not an academic, but his books are regularly cited in academic works and they receive positive reviews in academic journals. However, an experienced administrator associated Tibble's best known work with Emil's Clever Pig multiple times (both books were published by Oxford University Press). Tibble's reliability was also challenged by an editor who regularly edits articles about the crusades ([6]). What do you think is the best approach now? Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka: anyone can misuse a source, or make an honest mistake. That is what reviews and source reviews are for. If you cannot find a policy which rules it out, then, SFAICS, you have to let it go, whatever your doubts.

Buidhe is as thorough a source reviewer as one could wish for - as I have discovered the hard way; they have saved me from many an embarrassing error. They have indicated above that they are only waiting for outstanding issues to be resolved before doing a source review. If they are still willing, why don't we allow them to do a source review, with a concentration on Goldsworthy, and see what they think?

Re your points above, if we couldn't use any author who had ever written fiction, or any publisher which had ever printed it, or any book which didn't have a review at JSTOR, we would have very, very few sources we could use.

You may be relieved or horrified to hear that to my certain knowledge The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC has been accepted in 22 GA source reviews; 4 A class source reviews; and 11 FAC source reviews. It may be many more, I don't especially track it. In other words, it has already had a lot of scrutiny from a lot of experienced reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Goldsworthy is not an academic does not make his book unreliable on this subject. It is a good synthesis of the Punic Wars, on which there are not that many books in English, especially for the Third Punic War. As I said, he follows the academic consensus on the subject and refrains from making any bold assumption or generalisation. T8612 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks. I agree that we can assume that Goldsworthy's book is a reliable source. I only raised the issue, because one of the best sources of a specific aspect of the crusades was challenged multiple times just a couple of months ago, because Oxford University Press also publishes popular literature and its writer is not an academic. Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: That's fine. If you have any qualms as a reviewer it is the role of the nominator - ie, me - to assuage them. You do quite right to press me on anything you are not happy about. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry. 1. Consider shortening the sentence. 2. Sidwell & Jones do not state that the Carthagians had Phoenician ancestry, they say that Cathago was established as a Phoenician colony. Could we state that USA citizens had British ancestry?

Considered, but I don't see how. (Why is it an issue? It is shorter than the sentences on either side of it.) This may no longer apply as it has been moved further to your next comment.

Tweaked.

We could, if like Carthage the US defined citizenship by direct descent from the original settlers.

• Introduce Rome and Carthage (and the term Punic can also be introduced in this context).

Good idea. Done. (Also done, despite my qualms about defining it before the first usage of "Punic" in the text.)

In the mid-1st-century... Which century?

Gah! It's this backwards counting. Thanks. Corrected.

• Introduce Hannibal and his war elephants and also Scipio Africanus (they are now mentioned in note 2 in the subsequent section).

Why? Hannibal had been dead for centuries, and war elephants were nor involved in this conflict; this is just a passing reference to a term of a 50-year-old treaty. If a reader really wants to know more, they can click on the Wikilink.

Hannibal and his war elefants are mentioned in the text. Scipio Africanus is mentioned in a footnote.

Hannibal introduced - I had missed that. Scipio Africanus - the first one, is only mentioned in a footnote, where he is already introduced. Reference to elephants removed.

• ...the dominant indigenous people in North Africa west of Egypt. Does Kunze verify this statement?

Rephrased

• In 151 BC Carthage raised a large army commanded by Hasdrubal and, the treaty notwithstanding, counterattacked the Numidians. Which source verifies this statement? Kunze, who is cited in the next sentence, writes of the late 150s and he does not mention Hasdrubal.

Additional citation inserted.

• Introduce Hasdrubal.

I started to do this, but can't find anything useful to pass on to a reader. I have added 'the Carthaginian general' but I suspect that a reader will have already worked that out. I have also added that he was previously unknown in the records.

• Carthage had paid off its indemnity and... Is this text verified?

Citation added.

• Carthage had paid off its indemnity and was prospering economically, but was no military threat to Rome. Does Le Bohec verify this statement? I think Kunze is the source of the second part of the sentence.

She is, that is why she is cited. (I have moved the positioning of her cite in case it was not clear.)

• Carthage ... was prospering economically... Does Le Bohec write of a prospering economy? He writes of an "economic renaissance", but he also emphasizes that "several arguments prompt us to limit its size" and he refers to "mediocre funeral stelae" and "currency of weak quality".

Kunze p. 405 "There is archaeological and epigraphical evidence that, despite Carthage having to accept defeats, building activity was nevertheless flourishing during the period of the Punic Wars. In addition, numerous finds of imported pottery from all over the Hellenistic world confirm a prospering economy and show that trade, one of Carthage’s pillars of wealth and success, was still thriving."; p. 408 "a closer look at Carthage’s economic and military situation near the time of the Third Punic War suggests that the city, despite a recent economic upswing, was not in a position to pose any serious military threat to Rome." Miles p. 324 "a remarkable economic recovery"; p. 325 "Further evidence of Carthage's renewed prosperity ... " a list of archeological sites and finds follows. Goldsworthy p. 327 "agricultural production was booming ... [t]he archeological record suggests a high level of prosperity ... a rich material culture ... new prosperity". Harris in the CAH p. 147 "'It was considered the richest city in the world', says Polybius, thinking of the final period of its existence ... the absence of mercenaries no doubt explains why its precious-metal coins were of increased purity". Borsoka (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If my understanding is correct, Le Bohec (who is cited) does not verify the statement, but there are other authors who could be cited instead of Le Bohec.

It seems that Le Bohes was a poor choice to support the statement. Swapped for Kunze.

• Consider mentioning multiple possible reasons of the war, for instance, taking into account Kunze's and Le Bohec's summaries.

I always hate hypothesizing as to what went through, or failed to go through, the minds of prople long dead. The more so when the conclusion of the diversion is " ... and we don't know". It does not seem to me to be either helpful or encyclopedic; the ommission was not an oversight. That said, I can readily add something if you consider it an important point.

• In this case, you do not like science: nothing is proved, but only proposed, especially in history. ( Joke :) ) A study about the possible reasons of the war could clearly distinguish this article about the Siege of Carthago. Borsoka (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are Cato the Elder and his words "Carthago delenda est" ignored in the article?

Because of "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style", but see discussion above.

Now included - although (again) see discussion above.

I cannot imagine an article about the Third Punic War without mentioning these famous words, but now it is OK.

• Carthaginian embassies attempted to negotiate with Rome, but when the large North African port city of Utica went over to Rome in 149 BC the Senate and the People's Assembly declared war. 1. Does Kunze verify the statement? 2. The connection between Utica and the declaration of war is unclear. 3. Clarify that Rome declared war against Carthago.

1. Kunze and Goldsworthy between them do.

2. Clarified. (To the extent that the sources link them.)

3. The rephrasing "aware that its harbour would greatly facilitate any assault on Carthage, [Rome] declared war" makes this clearer, IMO.

• Those who know that the Senate and the People's Assembly are Roman institutions realize that the war was declared by Rome. However, I am not sure that all WP users are required to know it by heart. :)

It's not!! OK, made explicit

• It was the long-standing Roman procedure to elect two men each year, known as consuls, to each lead an army. Consuls had multiple tasks. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True. Including each leading an army, which is what is relevant here. I have added a general indication that they had other duties, see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Section "Opposing forces" describes the fortifications in the city of Carthago and provides numerical information about the armies. Consider adding a more detailed description: services, ships, arms, tactics....

If we had any reliable sources, I would be happy to do so, as I have for similar articles on the earlier Punic Wars. If you could point me towards some, I will see what I can incorporate, but I haven't come across any.

Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The second of these wars ended with a Roman victory... Both wars ended with a Roman victory.

D'oh! Fixed.

• The Roman army moved to Carthage and twice attempted to scale the city walls, from the sea and the landward sides, being repulsed both times, before settling down for a siege. When? I know we are in the year 149 BC, but no more information. The chronology of the events sometimes remains unclear.

The sources give no indication of when things happen. A lot seems to have gone on in 149 BC. The order of events is mostly (not always) clear, but there is no suggestion as to when in the year any of them happened.

• The first and second paragraphs are not linked in section "149 BC".

Hi Borsoka: I am probably being slow, but I don't understand your point here. Could you elaborate a little? (I have tweaked the first sentence of the second paragraph to, hopefully, be a little clearer; which may or may not have resolved the issue. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The same thing: the chronology of the events or their links remain unclear. We are informed about the siege of the city in the first paragraph and the next paragraph refers to a camp established by Censorinus. We are not informed whether the camp was established before, during or after the siege and we do not know where the camp was established. :)

Enlightenment! I have added "The Romans set up two camps: Censorinus one with the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius one intended to house the Roman legions." tot he first paragraph and changed the start of the second to "The camp established by Censorinus was ... ", Clearer?

• He then led a night march with a strong force... Maybe the numbers?

If only. We are not told.

• 4,000 Romans pushed into the city Were there Romans who did not push into the city?

On one level, no; or at least the sources don't say. On another level,, obviously yes; the Roman army was larger than 4,000. But what they were doing, and whether they were all asleep in their tents, we don't know.

• ...blessed Scipio... Did she?

Le Bohec says "She wished every possible happiness to Scipio Aemilianus". I don't have an issue with paraphrasing that as "[she] blessed Scipio".

I missed the text. Do other sources cited in the article mention the story? It is too romantic to be true. :)

• ...a small proportion of the pre-war population... 50,000 is a huge number in Antiquity - are we sure it represented a small proportion? Percentage? The population of what? The city? The state?

I agree. A total population of 50,000 would have made Carthage (the city) impressive. Earlier in the article I write "The city of Carthage itself was unusually large for the time, with a population estimated at 700,000." This is based on Miles "the 700,000 inhabitants of Carthage just before its fall". In context it is very clear that he is referring to just the city. It boggles me, but as Miles is a very respected academic and this is from the only full length history of Carthage in English that I am aware of I don't consider that it is for me to OR about it. Hoyos - another impeccable modern scholar - quotes Strabo as "70 myriads of men [ie persons] in the city" in 149 BC. Square brackets in Hoyos. Ie, 700,000; which I assume is what Miles is relying on. Hoyos also discusses modern estimates of the population in the third century BC, ie some 70 years earlier, where a wide range of estimates go as high as 400,000. Allowing for 70 years population growth ... A very rough calculation based on the known size of the city in 149 BC suggests that a population of 700,000 would have 150-200 square metres each, so it is not physically infeasible.

Borsoka (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka: good stuff, thanks. Addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Scipio was awarded the agnomen "Africanus"... Does Le Bohec verify the text? He writes: [Scipio] "was showered with honors and he resumed the name of Africanus..."

Yes, I am reading Le Bhec's full sentence as saying exactly that " On returning to Rome, he was showered with honors and he resumed the name of Africanus, which in times past his adoptive grandfather had borne." However, now changed to "took the agnomen "Africanus" ".

• The formerly Carthaginian territories were annexed by Rome and reconstituted to become the Roman province of Africa with Utica as its capital. Scullard is cited twice at the end of the text.

Yes; once to his 1955 article and once to his 2002 book. But you are correct that I am confused - the 1955 Scullard should have been Le Bohec! See next point

I think the text "with Urica as its capital" is not verified.

"Utica, promoted to the rank of capital of the new province": Le Bohec p. 443. But, yes, I messed up the referencing, as you point out above. Now fixed.

• Worlds Together, Worlds Apart: A History of the World: From the Beginnings of Humankind to the Present (Fourth Edition) (Vol. One-Volume) has multiple authors, but I cannot find Pollard ([7]).

I am referring to this work - I suspect that a bot may have mangled the ISBN.

• Numerous large Punic cities, such as those in Mauretania, were taken over by the Romans, 1. Numerous? Large? 2. Fantar is more specific. He writes that only the towns supporting Carthage till the end of the war were destroyed, but other towns survived under Roman rule.

So do several sources. If you consider that more specific, then fine. Done.

3. Consider mentioning some surviving towns in a footnote.

I would quite like to, but sourcing is an issue. You and me may "know" that modern Tunis and Utica, for example, are the linear descendants of the Punic cities, but finding a source which explicitly states this is the very devil! (Do you have any thoughts on this?)

• Fantar lists about 10 towns where the survival of Punic institutions is well documented (Fantar (2015), pp. 455-456).

I had misunderstood you. In this case I would rather not, unless you consider it important.

• My concern is that readers can assume a link between the following two sentences: "Seven cities which had gone over to the Romans early in the conflict, such as Utica, were rewarded." and "All of the surviving Punic cities were permitted to retain their traditional system of government." However, although seven cities were awarded (how?), the survival of Punic institutions can be detected in more than 10 towns. I do not insist on listing the towns, but the difference between the two group of towns/numbers should be clarified.

I am struggling a little here. Possibly neither of us are communicating our points as clearly as we might. The article attempts to say

• Seven cities were rewarded; precisely how and how these seven were chosen we are not told. (We are told why.)
• Some cities were punished - by becoming Roman property or, in at least one case, by being razed.
• "All of the surviving Punic cities" remained Punic in their institutions.

I could change the last to 'All of the surviving Punic cities, whether rewarded or forfieted' but the additional clarification seems redundant in light of the preceding "all". Your choice.

Or am I (still) missing the point?

• I made an attempt ([8]). Please feel free to edit the text. 1. I understand Fantar only refers to specific elements of pre-Roman administrative system that survived the Roman conquest. 2. I think the sentence about the seven cities which were rewarded could be deleted if we cannot list the cities and cannot say what was their reward.

We probably could, but I doubt it worth the effort. Reward sentence removed.

Fantar p. 455 "With the exception of those that were destroyed because they supported Carthage until the end of her days, the cities were able to continue and to preserve their institutions".

• ...until the 7th century. Consider adding "AD".

Done.

Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again Borsoka, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits and comments. I think there are 3-5 pending issues above. I think the "duplication" of the article, raised by Buidhe below is the principal issue to be solved. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: I shall get on with them. Re the "duplication" suggestion. My (inexperienced) understanding is that if an editor believes that two articles should be merged they can set up a merge discussion on the talk page of one of the articles in line with and according to the rationale in Wikipedia:Merging. But this is an issue outside the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think, merger is not the only or proper solution. Perhaps, the siege could be the main article of a significant part of this article. 2. I am convinced that it is within FAC criteria. If it were not, we could hardly describe WP as an encyclopedia. We cannot review an article as an isolated piece of work,because each article exists within a broader framework of articles. Borsoka (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will be opposing this nomination, as it is not within my power to delete the other article and I had thought that I had already made the siege "a significant part of this article". (I am aware of "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature".) We do indeed review each article as an isolated piece of work so far as FAC is concerned; you will find nothing in the criteria requiring (or allowing) a reviewer to consider other articles. I would be grateful if when you oppose (I am aware of the orange issues above and hope to address them shortly) you could make very clear the basis of your oppose. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." - If an article exists about the Siege of Carthage during the Third Punic War, the article about the Third Punic War can hardly stay focused on the main topic if it repeats the article about the siege.

That would depend, it seems to me, entirely on what the content of the article was. (I intend to discuss this a little further under Harrias's comments.

Could we repeat all information about each segment of the universe in an article about the Universe?

Indeed we would not, and such an article would fail FAC. Irrespective of whether or not there were other articles dealing with components of the universe. This is, it seems to me, precisely my point.

Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It would fail because of criterion 4. If this article presents all aspects of the siege, althouh a specific article about the siege exists, this article does not stay focused. Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Euboic conversions: having twice reread this section above I can't work out if it is one which you consider still pending, and if you do where we are in the discussion. I would be grateful if you could clarify if this is still a live issue and if it is, perhaps summarise the state of play.

• I could accept the present version if readers were explained that the conversion rate is from the time of the Second Punic War (as far as I can remember the referred work).

But we are talking about amounts agreed in the treaty which ended the Second Punic War. But done.

• I have started into the other pending issues above and am putting my response in blue so you can find them more readily. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments. I put the pending issues in orange above. Borsoka (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka: Firstly thanks with sticking with this review; I am sure that it has become a much larger task than you anticipated when you started. Secondly, if I am understanding you correctly then a potential solution would be to remove, condense or summarise some of the information on the siege in this article. Do I have that right? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, plus expanding the article about the possible reasons of the war. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka: possible reasons for the war expanded, in the penultimate paragraph of "Background"; aspects of the prose which are more fully explained in Siege of Carthage have been cut back to summary style, mostly in these edits. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work. I enjoyed reading and reviewing this article. As soon as the issues listed above by T8612 are addressed I will gladly support this FAC. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A series of edits ([9]) convinced me that the Third Punic War is a FA. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Thank you for the work you have put into this and for the support. I look forward to reciprocating with Charles I. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When deciding if a source is reliable for a particular claim, there are multiple considerations to evaluate: author, publisher, reviews/citations of the work, how extraordinary the claim is, etc. One factor doesn't usually determine reliability all by itself. (BTW I don't share Iridescent's view of OUP, especially the very prestigious Clarendon Press—in my experience, more prestigious outlets are much less likely to publish garbage than other publishers). Likewise, although academic works are usually preferred to popular history, well regarded popular works and garbage academic ones also exist. However, just because a source has been accepted at previous source reviews is not a guarantee that the previous reviewers were correct in their estimation. (For example, Franz Kurowski was cited in several FA and A-class articles). (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your remark about the reliability of some sources used in FAs and GAs. I did not dare to say this. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks

• "the modern consensus is that this proximity causes the normally reliable Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in an excessively favourable light" I wouldn't say that Astin supports "consensus" (see WP:RS/AC). I do not have access to the other source.

Hmm. This is definitely the case, but I see your point. Every historian who discusses Polybius at any length comments on his pro-Scipio bias. I am loath to support it by giving a cite to a dozen separate sources. {u|T8612)), do you know of a source which expressly states that this is generally agreed?

See Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, pp.3-4 (see screenshot); and also the Cambridge Ancient History vol. 8, pp. 5-6.

@T8612: Thanks. Unfortunately CAH pp. 5-6 is precisely what Buidhe was unhappy with. I am sure that they will point out that the other Astin cite you provide is just one scholar's opinion and does not prove a consensus. Where is Lazenby when you need him? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cite Walbank, who is the most important scholar on Polybius. The Cambridge Ancient History is a reference work, especially the first pages on the "sources", which all the contributors certainly reviewed and participated, although it is signed by Astin. I think it is enough to establish consensus. T8612 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe: you convinced? T8612 explains the situation better than I could. Ot should I water down the claim? Your call. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered by it if there's at least one source which explicitly states "consensus" or that there is an agreement among scholars, as required for verifiability purposes. However, that does not seem to be the case here. I would change it to "this proximity causes Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in a favourable light" in wikivoice, without the claim to represent scholarly consensus. (t · c) buidhe 15:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe, I have gone with "this proximity causes the normally reliable Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in a favourable light". That OK? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will rarely find an author saying "consensus". However, when the most important reference works say the same thing, then you can assume there is consensus on the matter. T8612 (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe: I am checking if my change noted just above satisfacorily addresses this point and if there is anything else outstanding on the source review? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is fine by me. I would do more source checks but I think that the duplication issue, also raised by Borsoka, should be addressed first. (t · c) buidhe 13:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Le Bohec does not support "significant portions of The Histories' account of the Third Punic War have been lost". He does say Polybius has not left us much information but that is ambiguous as to whether it was never written or lost.

OK. Replaced with Hoyos "Only Polybius’ first five books (out of 40) are complete, although we do have sizeable extracts from the rest" and Goldsworthy "only a small part of the total work has survived".

• "Modern historians also use the account of the 2nd century CE Greek historian Appian" Bohec does not say that Appian was Greek or lived in the second century: he describes him as Appian, a provincial living under the High Empire

That had me stumped for a moment - as to how I had messed up. not as to its accuracy. In the next sentence I quote Mineo, from an earlier article in the same volume. I also cite to the appropriate page of Mineo in the previous sentence. I must have had it in my mind that this covered the sentence in question as well - obviously it doesn't, I am merely going senile. Mineo - "Appian was a Greek from Alexandria (born at the end of the first century AD, died in the 160s)." now cited at the appropriate place.

Other comments

Yann Le Bohec states on the first page of his chapter:

The conflict known under the name of the “Third Punic War” does not enter the category of wars in the general sense of this word: it amounted, in fact, to one single military operation, the siege of one city, in this case Carthage. The author who wishes to describe it will have no order of march to report, no great battle in open country to describe, neither armistice nor peace treaty to mention. But the expression “Third Punic War” has been adopted by tradition, and that is why we are allowed to keep it. In reality, the title “Siege of Carthage” would be more appropriate.

This supports my view, after reading both articles, that there seems to be a very high amount of overlap between this article and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War). I think that a merge would be a good idea, especially considering that both articles are pretty short. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat disagree, there were a small naval battle and other skirmishes. The general context and preparation with the Numidian confrontation don't really belong to the siege of Carthage too. I think the "background" section should be expanded to better show the diplomacy and political debates at Rome behind the Roman invasion (will comment on this tomorrow). Le Bohec is deliberately simplifying things here. It could be possible to merge all the skirmishes into Third Punic War, but the article would be quite large. T8612 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my limited investigation, Le Bohec is in a minority, probably of one, in holding this view. While there is overlap, other authorities consider the War and the siege to be separate. I could OR as to why they may consider this so - not unreasonably none of them attempt to deal with this negative - eg the Carthaginians fielded an army of 30,000 entirely separate from the siege, which was involved in several pitched battles (not, IMO, "skirmishes") and was eventually (after nearly three years) destroyed when its camp was stormed by a Roman legion. Yes, there is overlap between the Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia of course, is not a reliable source. I note in passing that both the siege and the war are separate vital articles; not, of course, a conclusive point, but one assumes that a similar discussion to this one was held at some point. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit odd that you would emphasize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but then count Vital articles (a Wikiproject) as a reliable indicator of anything. According to a free online tool https://www.cortical.io/freetools/compare-text/ 85% of the text in the articles is identical. I have often been concerned by overlaps in your Punic Wars articles, but this is worse than usual. I can't support this article until the issue with having a substantially identical duplicate in mainspace is addressed. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree, we do not need two almost identical articles. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Purely on the use of the tool you mention. "85% of the text in the articles is" not "identical". A skim of both articles, or a look at the grid the tool produces, would seem to confirm this. The introduction to the tool states "overlap in meaning between the two texts is quantified as a percentage" (emphasis added). I cannot see that "meaning is defined.

Checking out a few existing FAs, not at random, I find that HMS Princess Royal and Lion-class battlecruiser have an 84% "overlap of meaning"; Reign of Cleopatra and Cleopatra 86%; Chough and Red-billed chough 70%. Third Punic War and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War) currently have an 83% "overlap of meaning".

I am not with this post attempting to address or refute your main point; I am refuting the assertion that "85% of the text in the articles is identical". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe and thank you for picking up assorted idiocies of mine above. Now addressed bar Polyibius's pro-Scipio bias. Let's see if another editor has an explicit source; if not I shall have to do it the hard way. Is there more to follow? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Harris 2006
  • Article says: "The former site of the city was confiscated as ager publicus, public land." Source states "Much of Carthage's own land, however, became Roman ager publicus.":::Quite right. I don't know what I was thinking. Replaced with Le Bohec "The former area of Carthage, called chora by the Greeks and pertica by the Romans, became the collective property of the Roman people, in Latin ager publicus populi Romani".
• Vogel-Weidemann
  • "since the 18th century he has been credited with ending all of his speeches with Carthago delenda est ("Carthage must be destroyed")" not supported

Miles establishes that he alledgedly said it, Vogel-Weidemann that it was an 18th century invention.

• • Both Cato and Nasica were members of embassies to Carthage., not entirely supported by the source which states that Nasica only had "probably been a member of the same mission"

Hmm. I took the stress to be on "the same", but I see your point. Changed to "Nasica was likely a member of the same embassy."

• • Vogel-Weidemann 1989, pp. 79–88. I need a shorter page range to be able to check this.

Well, the whole article is a summary of modern explanations for the war; I will break it down against each phrase, but this may cause some loss of context.

• Not a source check, but you may be interested to learn that "Cartago delenda est" is said to be the first recorded incitement to genocide.

I have come across that. I am not personally persuaded that Cato envisaged genocide, and anyway, it is well established that the words were a much later invention, so I skipped it.

May do more tomorrow. (t · c) buidhe 05:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " The province became a major source of grain and other food." not supported by the cited source

I no longer have (easy) access to that. Perhaps Mitchell p. 345 "The large hinterland of Carthage ... was mainly taken up with cereal agriculture. ... two thirds of the annual harvest is said to have been exported to Rome. ... Africa was rich in all things, including grain, fruit [and] olive[s]."

• "What role Rome's political divisions played in this decision is unclear. The modern historian William Harris describes these political issues as "the large historical problems involved in the Third Punic War" As far as I can tell, Harris discusses the political divisions in Rome and then says, "we are now getting to the large historical problems involved in the Third Punic War" . So I'm not sure this is supported.

Weeell, that's not how I read it, but this has been added since the review started, so I am happy to remove it. I started a rather complex explanation as to how I feel that Harris p. 151 and other sources support "What role Rome's political divisions played in this decision is unclear." but, again, that is a review accretion, and reading through the section, I think that it works better without it, so gone.

• "Modern scholars have advanced a number of theories as to why Rome was eager for war. These include: a Roman fear of Carthaginian commercial competition; a desire to forestall a wider war which might have broken out with the death of Masinissa, who was aged 89 at the time; the factional use of Carthage as a political "bogeyman", irrespective of her true power; a greed for glory and loot; and a desire to quash a political system with Rome considered anathema. No consensus has been reached regarding these and various other hypotheses." I think most of this is supported by Le Bohec, but verifiability would be improved if you broke up the refs and cited each clause individually. (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That ties in with your Vogel-Weidemann point above and my response there. I will sort it. Done.

• "A large Roman army landed at Utica in 149 BC under both consuls for the year, Manius Manilius commanding the army and Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus the fleet. The Carthaginians continued to attempt to appease Rome, and sent an embassy to Utica. The consuls demanded that they hand over all weaponry, and reluctantly the Carthaginians did so. Large convoys took enormous stocks of equipment from Carthage to Utica. Surviving records state that these included 200,000 sets of armour and 2,000 catapults. Their warships all sailed to Utica and were burnt in the harbour. Once Carthage was disarmed, Censorinus made the further demand that the Carthaginians abandon their city and relocate 16 kilometres (10 mi) away from the sea; Carthage would then be destroyed. The Carthaginians abandoned negotiations and prepared to defend their city." It would be much easier to verify this info if refs were broken up. Most or all of this is not supported by Le Bohec, IDK about the other sources.

OK. Done. It is all based on Goldsworthy - let me know if you would like a scan - except for Purcell clearly establishing that it was Censorinus who made the demand re moving the city. Le Bohec is not really needed and I have removed him.

• "The Carthaginians raised a strong and energetic force to garrison the city from their citizenry and by freeing all slaves willing to fight." Slaves are not mentioned at all in Le Bohec.

That's in Miles p. 341 "It set free its slaves to fight in the army."

• "They also formed a 30,000 strong field army, which was placed under Hasdrubal, freshly released from his condemned cell." not supported

I am an idiot. I both conflated two sources and typoed the army strength. Correct army strength now cited to Harris - I believe that the rest is supported by Le Bohec.

Hi Buidhe, all done and awaiting further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Sorry for the additional ping but just checking in on where we are with the source review. --Laser brain (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will get to it later today. (t · c) buidhe 19:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Buidhe. (And I am going to go back to school before posting another FAC, in the hope of avoiding giving my next source reviewer as hard a time as I have given you.) Pinging Laser brain, source review passed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will proceed with what will mostly be a prose review. I have not reviewed this article before, but I did carry out the GA review for Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War), which I note that buidhe and Borsoka have mentioned above, so I will do my best to weigh in on that topic too. Note that when I ran the external duplication tool mentioned by buidhe, I only got a 30% match: I don't know if that is because changes have since been made, or something else. I am also competing in the WikiCup and will claim points for this review.

• "..but after 167 BC it has survived only as a list of its contents." Sorry, are we saying that 1) All that survives of the account now (after 167 BC) is a list of its contents. 2) That all that is left of what he wrote after 167 BC is a list of its contents, or 3) That all that survives dealing with events that occurred after 167 BC is a list of its contents?

Ah. Nice. Fixed. I think.

• "Both wars wars ended.." Duplicate word.

Fixed.

• "At the end of the war the Roman ally Masinissa emerged.." While I don't think it is actually wrong, I find the definite article slightly jarring here. Although it adds a sub-clause and more commas, I wonder if "At the end of the war Masinissa, an ally of Rome, emerged.." or "At the end of the war an ally of Rome, Masinissa, emerged.." might be clearer. This might just be a personal preference thing.

It may be personal. I am quite prepared to change to one of your suggestions, but standing back as best I can, the increase in commas and sub-clauses seems to me to make the meaning less accessible.

Noting the discussion below, I have gone with your suggestion of "At the end of the war Masinissa, an ally of Rome, emerged".

• "..Rome backed its ally, Masinissa, and refused." Not sure it is necessary to include "its ally" here, it feels repetitive, "..Rome backed Masinissa, and refused." seems to suffice.

OK.

• I don't like the easter egg red link to Battle of Oroscopa: "The campaign ended in disaster at the Battle of Oroscopa and the army surrendered;"

Fair point. Changed.

• Is there a more accessible term than "temporised"?

dissembled?

• "..the Senate and the People's Assembly of Rome declared war." Presumably on Carthage?

Added.

• There is a lot of commonality between the "Opposing forces" and "Course of the war" sections in this article and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War). If a merge is not justified, then the two articles need to rationalise their purpose. This article should provide a summary of the entire war, and therefore provide less detail on the Siege. The article on the Siege should provide greater detail on the Siege (clearly), but only a summary of the other events and Background. If it is felt that the two are too entangled for that to be achievable, then I would concur with the suggestion that the articles should be merged. I'm going to hold off any further review comments, particularly as most of what remains is very similar to what I already reviewed at Talk:Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War)/GA1. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Harrias—not my period, so I would bow to your superior knowledge here but there appears to be two separate questions. In progress in this FAC, the only question here is whether the article meets the criteria. On that basis I would urge you to complete your review. The second question is whether the two articles should merge. No one is progressing this through a merger discussion. As a lay reader of this article the action seems to amount to more than a single siege and over a period of several years: more a campaign with a single objective. I don't know if there are articles on other engagements in this war but with limited sources I would be surprised if the area warrants a summary article for the war (here) with child articles for the various engagements. This article is less than 4k words, the siege article is less than 3k. Where your expertise comes in handy is answering the question would any reader search for siege of Carthage and if they did would this article serve the purpose. If so I would suggest completing this FAC then initiating a discussion to get the siege article deleted. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Norfolkbigfish:: "I would be surprised if the area warrants a summary article for the war (here) with child articles for the various engagements." But it does: we have articles on the Battle of Lake Tunis, Battle of the Port of Carthage, Battle of Nepheris (147 BC) and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War), and Gog has indicated that they intend to write the article for the Battle of Oroscopa. So within that context, I believe that this article should be trimmed to provide a summary style per FACR #4. If, as you say, those other articles were to be deleted, then this article could bear to include more, but while the Featured article criteria only considers individual articles, as an encyclopedia we need to consider the whole picture. For this to pass the FAC before we ascertain its purpose seems folly. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point, and very much the answer to the question I was asking. Having flicked through them all they look very underdeveloped though, largely Start Class at best B. Are they ever likely to develop further? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that as to how things break down, and also that Norfolkbigfish's suggestion is the appropriate course of action. Although we seem to be in a minority.

As an aside, the various Punic wars campaign boxes have a number of articles which IMO would be best merged/deleted. (I am not at all sure that I would consider Siege of Carthage one of them, but that would be where a merge/deletion discussion would establish consensus - and I am probably too close to form a disinterested view.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify: I think there is sufficient content to justify separate articles on the Third Punic War and the Siege of Carthage, but I think that this article should trim back some of the detail on the siege (and similarly, the siege article should trim back some of the extraneous detail in its "Course of the war" section, but that is beyond the purview of this review). For example, at the moment the 146 BC section includes a note saying that the "Main article" for that section is Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War), but in fact that 146 BC in that article is almost identical, so suggesting one is the "main" article and one is the "summary" article is a little misleading. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias and thanks for that clear steer. I have reduced, I think, the content in this article which is more fully explained in Siege of Carthage to summary style, mostly in these edits. I have also expanded a little on possible reasons for the war, in the penultimate paragraph of "Background", at Borsoka's request. Hopefully this will allow you to continue with your review: let me know either way. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "..and energetic force.." energetic seems an odd word to use here, I have images of the soldiers constantly breaking out into star jumps or something.

Perhaps they did! I am trying to paraphrase "fought long and hard" and "the whole Punic citizen body threw itself wholeheartedly into the war effort" and Norfolkbigfish didn't like "enthusiastic". I think that I am reverting to "enthusiastic" based on the second source, unless there is a better idea?

I think "enthusiastic" works, suits me. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "They set up two camps: Censorinus one with the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius one to house the Roman legions." I find this phrasing awkward, and I don't like it. Maybe "They set up two camps: Censorinus's had the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius's housed the Roman legions." or similar?

OK. Done.

• "Hasdrubal moved up his army and harassed the Roman supply lines and foraging parties." To avoid the double "and" statement, could this be "Hasdrubal moved up his army to harass the Roman supply lines and foraging parties."?

Good idea. Done.

• "Arriving there, Manilius ordered an immediate assault.." Rephrase to avoid the easter egg link to Battle of Nepheris (149 BC). To be honest, given that article redirects to the Content section of Battle of Nepheris (147 BC), which gives less information about the engagement than this article, I would just bin it completely.

Binned.

• Is there an appropriate wikilink for "winter quarters"? (I seem to recall from my own articles that there isn't really; unless you know of one, we could do with adding something.)

Redirects to cantonment. Which is not, IMO, what we want.

I think it would definitely be worth creating something for if we can find some decent sources, but that is clearly beyond the purview of this review. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the engagement which followed.." how about "In the ensuing Battle of the Port of Carthage.." to avoid a minor easter egg?

Done.

• "..or captured by the Romans. The Romans now.." Awkward immediate repetition of "the Romans".

Fixed.

• "Hasdrubal's wife, watching from a rampart, then blessed Scipio, cursed her husband, and walked into the temple with her children, to burn to death." This sounds like the romanticised sort of thing that is often written, and I'm always pretty incredulous. I know there is an RS for it, but is there enough corroboration that this definitely happened, or should it be a softer "it is said that.."?

I know exactly what you mean. Note how I have specified that "Carthago delanda est" is an invention; likewise the salt sowing. I have not gone with requests to have Scipio crying. But IMO weakening the statement would be OR. It is as nailed down in primary and secondary sources as anything about the war, and more so than quite a lot. And perhaps not that improbable. See Sati (practice).

If it is that prevalent across the sources, then that's fine. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "A curse was placed on anyone who might attempt to resettle the site in the future." Is this not repeating "The site was cursed with the intention of preventing it ever being resettled." from the previous section?

It is. Sorted. Thanks.

• "..had been dug up by wolves - a very poor omen." Use an endash, not a hyphen.

Sloppy! Done.

I think that's the lot. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, happy to support this now, excellent work. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lay readers' view of the article, comments below.....

Primary Sources

• Uses Punic prior to explaining definition

1. This has been a footnote, in brackets; at first mention, at first mention outside "Primary sources". Each change has been at the request of a reviewer - not necessarily at this FAC.
2. We are attempting the impossible: if I move it to the opening sentence of the main article (the first mention is currently there) it is open to the valid criticism that it is not comprehensible because I have not yet introduced "Carthage" or "Rome".
3. Neither where nor how it currently is is my personal first choice, but I really would prefer to avoid restarting this particular merry-go-round when we seem to have reached a compromise everyone is content with.

• this proximity causes the normally reliable Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in a favourable light, proximity is a strange use of words, maybe Polybius account of Scipio's actions may therefore be overly favourable or something similar

I am attempting to suggest physical closeness,, but if you don't like that I have deleted "proximity".

• Second paragraph uses historian 5 times, might be worth a ce!

Good spot. Reduced to two - both "modern historians".

Background

• Carthage and Rome had fought the 23-year-long First Punic War from 264 to 261 BC I think one or more of your dates is wrong, or my maths

Its your maths. (Honest. Count backwards on your fingers if you don't trust me.)

It was actually a typo: I fixed this. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. That's why I need good copy editors! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Over the following 50 years he was he really campaigning for 50 years?

Yep. Goldsworthy p. 335 "88 years old, but still fit enough to ride without a saddle ... and to lead his men into battle."

• ended in disaster is it worth linking this to a page that does not exist?

Changed to specify the battle. Still a red link. It's policy; and is firmly on my to do list, so shouldn't be red for too long.

• Carthage had paid off its indemnity and was prospering economically, but was no military threat to Rome. grammar, could lose had, and and replace the comma with and for the same effect?

That would change the meaning t my eye.

• which temporised is not needed

It has been changed to "which dissembled" at another reviewer's request. If I delete it a reviewer is going to ask "And is it known how the Romans responded?"

• I notice this is written in British English, would be worth tagging to that effect

It is - dated August 2020.

• Utica, where is that in relation?

Nice. Added.

Opposing Forces

• Do two small paras warrant a section?

I personally think that it helps to seperate this overview of the two sides out from the rest of the background. And I don't think that the article is overloaded with sections. But I am not wedded to it. I could make it a sub-section.

• and enthusiastic really? I doubt we know their level of enthusiasm.

Changed to "energetic".

149 BC

• being repulsed both times is redundant

Not to me it's not. Deleted, but I shall refer any complaints to you ;-) .

• Censorinus one with the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius one to house the Roman legions I think the ones are redundant

Erm, if I delete them, the sentence isn't grammatical; or at least doesn't mean what we want it to.

• pestiferous I think is not the right word, although I understand what you intend, unless the camp was plague ridden?

That's exactly what it was.

• made repetitions of repeated?

Good grief! Did I really write that? Changed.

• foodstuffs food?

Changed.

• led out 300 cavalry and with a led 300 cavalry in a?

Done.

• pulled back withdrew?

I think that "pulled back" communicates what is meant a little more clearly. Is this a major issue?

• had cut off had redundant?

It needs the "had" to match the past tense "That night it was realised" earlier in the sentence.

• the cut-off trapped?

Done.

• Romans back retreat?

Changed to "Manilius withdrew after the Romans ran out of food ..."

So far, so good. All very interesting and understandable. More to follow......Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Norfolkbigfish, just what was needed. All addressed bar your very first point, which has had so many opinions that it makes my head spin. I shall try to get back to you on it tomorrow. I have gone with, I think, most of your suggestions; with queries, comments or defences against others. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

148 BC

• Hasdrubal, commander of the Carthaginian field army, overthrew the civilian leadership of Carthage and took command himself phrasing commander, command

Tweaked.

147 BC

• Scipio intended to stand in the 147 BC elections for the post of aedile; this was a natural progression for him and at age 36 or 37 he was too young to stand as consul, for which the minimum age requirement was 41 long sentence worth breaking

Broken

• There was considerable political manoeuvring behind the scenes, much of which is opaque in the sources, and it is not known to what extent, if any, Scipio helped orchestrate this outcome not sure we can say there was considerable manoeuvring if the sources are opaque and things are not known

Without wanting to give chapter and verse - which I could if you wish - the sources say a lot about this manoeuvring, but it is opaque because we lack the context to make sense of it. Happy to rephrase, but obviously will need to reflect the sources; the current sentence is reasonably close to a source, hence its attractiveness to me.

You were not alone in not being totally happy with this, so I have worked some more detail in.

• Once the channel was complete this sailed out this sailed out, perhaps the fleet sailed through is better?

Very good. :-) Changed.

• struck at the Carthaginian field army attacked the....?

Done.

• This section has a number of subordinate clauses, not important but it would read clearer if these were rewritten as sentences.

Done with all bar one.

146 BC

• helpless to prevent them and furious helpless, furious.....really?

Goldsworthy p. 352 "Nothing Scipio or their officers did could persuade the men to return to return to their duty ..." seems to cover "helpless". Grr; can't find the cite for "furious", so removed. I'll let you know when/if it turns up.

• holdouts not a word, at least according to the OED

((wikt:holdout]]

• The site was cursed (evocation) this can be rewritten without parenthesis

"(evocation)" removed.

Aftermath

• as his adoptive grandfather had as had his adoptive grandfather

Done.

• foodstuffs food

Done.

Nice work, I enjoyed readin that. I assume the facts and sources will be checked by the other guys

Oh yes!

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: Thanks for that. I owe you one. All of your points responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Norfolkbigfish, is there more to come, or do you feel able to make a judgement on the prose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support on prose, interesting article, well done.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to User:Harrias:

• "At the end of the war, the Roman ally Masinissa emerged as..." — the definite article inicates, that Masinissa was an ally of Rome, but from outside the Roman Empire, and not a a Roman, as he's been indicated to have been a Numidian. Were the definite article absent, Masinissa would be interpreted as a Roman who was an ally. -Mardus /talk 10:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I suggested other, clearer phrasing options. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of commentary already, but I have a hard time figuring out where the support is going, so I thought I might chime in anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There is some duplinking, especially in the aftermath section, can be highlighted with this script.[10]

Sorted.

• Link Numidia in caption?

Done.

• A minor point, but it always annoys me when left aligned images "clash" with section headers. You could circumvent this by reversing the alignments of the images from the "149 BC" section and onwards.

Anything to keep a reviewer happy. Reversing the images doesn't prevent the clash at 146 BC, but I assume that you are less concerned, as it is right alined now.

Hi FunkMonk and many thanks for stopping by. Those points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The alignment of the catapult image could probably depend on which direction the catapult aims at. If it aims to the left, it might be cool to right align it, so it could aim towards the text... FunkMonk (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• "Carthage had paid off its indemnity" By what year?

Good point. Added.

• "Map of Numidia at its greatest extent" Perhaps add to the caption that it was the rival of Carthage for context?

I dislike repeating information in a caption which is already in the text. In fact I dislike chunky captions in general - if the information is that useful/important, I put it in the text.

Heh, I guess this is another place where interpretation of MOS can lead to different philosophies. I take WP:captions to imply that image captions should establish the the context of the images, but I won't press the issue. "Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious, such as its relevance to the text... captions are the most commonly read words in an article, so they should be succinct and informative." FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that this is a case of "succinct" and "informative" fighting it out. :-)

• "political system with Rome considered anathema" Which?

Ah now, there is a whole paper on this, and even Le Bohec's half page summary doesn't really make sense without a lot of background knowledge. I have tweaked this bit but am not convinced that it is an improvement.

Ah, I should have been clearer, I meant should "with" be "which" in the sentence? "desire to quash a political system which Rome considered anathema"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That gave me a genuine LOL! Sorted.

• "nabled up to 4,000 Romans to fire" With what?

Not specified. I assume whatever came to hand, but that's OR. I am guessing that the primary sources took it as read, and no secondary source I have seen ventures a guess.

• "At this point Hasdrubal surrendered to Scipio on the promise of his life and freedom. Hasdrubal's wife, watching from a rampart, then blessed Scipio, cursed her husband, and walked into the temple with her children, to burn to death." This almost sounds like dramatic war propaganda, and surprisingly specific. Maybe a case where we could state who this claim is attributed to and how reliable it is? Especially since another dramatic claim right after is shown to have been a later invention.

As I responded to Harrias's similar point "I know exactly what you mean. Note how I have specified that "Carthago delanda est" is an invention; likewise the salt sowing. I have not gone with requests to have Scipio crying. But IMO weakening the statement would be OR. It is as nailed down in primary and secondary sources as anything about the war, and more so than quite a lot. And perhaps not that improbable. See Sati (practice)." Just because WP:We Don't Like It doesn't, in my opinion, mean that we are entitled to pick it out to undermine it's credibility. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, can't say I don't like it, but since as you say in the article, one of the main sources about the event was biased in favour of the Romans, it is easy to imagine he would exaggerate. But yes, that is of course speculation if none of the sources go into this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not enthusiastic about it either. But once we as editors start deciding which RS backed ideas we are going to question the reliability of in an article we are on a slippery slope. I entirely understand why you and Harrias both queried it.

• One wonders what happened to Hasdrubal subsequently? Especially since you do state what happened to Scipio afterwards.

Not specified, but I have managed to infer without, I think, ORing.

• "and is known to modern scholars as "Neo-Punic civilization"" Anything to link?

Sadly not. The closest is Punic language. But I mean quite a bit more than that, and while the language article gives "to 6th century CE" in the infobox, it actually peters out not long after the fall of Carthage.

• "the ruins of Carthage lie 16 kilometres (10 mi) east of modern Tunis" Are there cities at the site itself today?

There is a sprawling suburb of Tunis with about 20,000 inhabitants. It is a separate administrative area and so has a mayor. I have added "As of 2020 the modern settlement of Carthage was a district of the city of Tunis." (Sourced to UNESCO.)

• "the mayors of Rome and the modern city of Carthage" But is there a modern city of Carthage? All I could find is Carthage municipality...

Good point. Well, I suppose it depends on what you call a city, I have removed "city" as it smacks of OR, and I think the addition noted above serves as an introduction.

• "via blockade runners" Should these be mentioned i the article body as well?

Good spot. Went MIA in a large cull requested by another reviewer. Added back.

• "Here, over several months, they constructed a structure as high as" In the intro you mention it was made of bricks, could be stated in the article body as well?

As above. Reinstated. Thanks.

Thanks FunkMonk, all useful stuff. I responded once, but an edit conflict seems to have eaten it, so this is take two. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added some comments above, but you only have to act on my miscommunication about "which", the rest looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With/which typo sorted. A couple of random comments added as well. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - which that out of the way, I better wrap this up. Nice article! FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A great read, as usual. I was disappointed to learn that the sowing with salt was apocryphal, that was one of the few things I could remember about this campaign from my classical studies lessons at school. To my mind, this is already there, so I'm supporting, but I have a couple of thoughts for consideration:

• Would the bit about Utica going over to Rome bear an additional sentence expanding on how and why the city did that? My impression from the current text is that Utica could see which way the wind was blowing and decided to switch allegiances, but it might be helpful just to spell that out for the reader?

It would be, and I wish I could. It seems obvious. But it would be OR. The sources give it only the most passing of mentions.

Fair enough - yes, if the sources don't expand on that, then best leave it as it is.

• In 148 BC, the sentence "He failed: Neapolis surrendered and was subsequently sacked; but Aspis withstood assaults from both the Roman army and navy; while Hippo was fruitlessly besieged." - are those semi-colons necessary? There are conjunctions between the clauses, wouldn't commas suffice?

I would not dream of arguing with you. Now comma'ed.

That's it from me. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Mr Summit, how thoughtful of you to drop by. Thank you for the review and the input. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome :) GirthSummit _(blether) 14:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has a lot of commentaries I'll have a look before this will be promoted.

• In 149 BC Carthage sent an army, under Hasdrubal Hasdrubal who?

Not known.

• the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus --> "the Roman General Scipio Aemilianus"

Not according to MOS:JOBTITLES.

• Probably never gonna learn it.

• of the Third Punic War have been lost.[10][7] Re-order the refs.

This is not a requirement of either the MOS or the FAC criteria. But done anyway.

• That's true but my perfectionism wouldn't let these go. ;)

• while Carthage was a large city state Not "city-state"?

Apparently either is acceptable. My paper Chambers only gives "city state".

• Just in case I've searched on Ngram which one is mostly used and it looks like in British English city-state is more popular. I also found out that city-state in general is more popular in English.

Fair enough. Changed.

• "modern northern Tunisia" (lead) vs "in the north east of what is now modern Tunisia" (body) One says northern and the other north east.

One says where the fighting was; the other says where Carthage's territory was. Two different things.

• the Second when the Roman general Scipio Africanus --> "the Second when the Roman General Scipio Africanus"

See above.

• Link Masinissa in the body.

Oops. Done.

• Carthaginian general Hasdrubal and, the treaty notwithstanding, counterattacked the Numidians --> "Carthaginian General Hasdrubal the Boetharch and, the treaty notwithstanding, counter-attacked the Numidians"

g → G, see above; hyphen inserted.

• of Utica, some 55 kilometres (34 mi) north of Carthage --> "of Utica, some 55 km (34 mi) north of Carthage"

Done.

• Carthaginians abandon their city and relocate 16 kilometres (10 mi) away Same as above.

Done.

• Carthage would then be destroyed.[63][62] Re-order the refs.

This is not a requirement of either the MOS or the FAC criteria. But done anyway.

• with walls of more than 35 kilometres (20 mi) circumference --> "with walls of more than 35 km (20 mi) circumference"

Done.

• This army was based at Nepheris, 25 kilometres (16 mi) south --> "This army was based at Nepheris, 25 km (16 mi) south"

Done.

• The Romans launched another assault on the city but were thrown MOS:EGG here.

Removed.

• the ruins of Carthage lie 16 kilometres (10 mi) east --> "the ruins of Carthage lie 16 km (10 mi) east"

Done.

• Maybe switch the last two sentences since they are not in chronically order?

Done.

• Purcell, Nicholas's source should have a "pp. 133–148" not "pp. 133–48".

Eagle eyes. Fixed.

• 10,000 talents was approximately 269,000 kg (265 long tons) of silver at the time of the Second Punic War 10,000 is the start of a sentence and maybe link long tons?

Fixed and done.

• Hasdrubal escaped to Carthage, where in an attempt Typo of wherein?

No; missing commas. Added.

• the beached Roman ships; and Manilius's Strange choice to use "and" after a semi-colon?

Entirely normal when semi colons are used to separate items in a list.

• Optional In spite of the greater forethought --> "Despite the greater forethought"

Good. Done.

• Optional death on the walls, in view of the Roman army --> "death on the walls, given the Roman army"

I am not sure I understand your alternative. Is there a typo?

I think CPA-5 is assuming that you are using the phrase 'in view of' in the sense that would be synonymous with 'given' (or with 'in light of'); I believe you actually mean 'within the sight of'. I don't think it needs changing, but you could consider rewording if there's any chance of someone misreading this. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. "view" changed to "sight".

• @Girth Summit: Looks like someone can read my mind. ;)

• he considered ill disciplined or poorly --> "he considered ill-disciplined or poorly"?

Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5. It is so good to see you back in action. Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well yes since my classmate tested positive; I'm now put in quarantine until the 1st. Thus I have a lot of time unless I feel under the weather within this week. :( Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Ah. So a "bad news and good news" situation. City state tweaked. Have I missed anything? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think so. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: @Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Ealdgyth: This one looks close to done for me. Which obviously is a decision entirely for you. If you do feel that a consensus has been reached, it would make me a happy nominator if this could be agreed before the end of play today, as I am in the WikiCup and today is the end of the final round. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's it worth t'ya then?! Seriously, it does look sufficiently advanced to permit a new nom so feel free... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian but my referencing has been poor recently, so I intend to take a break from FAC nominations for a while until I sort myself out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, do you intend to tweak this article further in that regard? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. No. This article is as good as I am likely to get it and there are no unaddressed comments. This process for this one felt a bit rough and I am probably getting a bit stale/burnt out. It was just a passing/chatty comment to that effect. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2020 (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) 23:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [11].

---

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about a Star Trek: Voyager episode in which Ensign Harry Kim falls into a trap used by female aliens to attract and kill men as part of their sexual reproduction. In the original premise, Kim was revealed as an alien and would have remained that way for the rest of Voyager. This idea was abandoned after multiple script rewrites. The episode has received primarily negative reviews from critics and fans, and has been the subject of academic analysis.

Thank you again to @No Great Shaker: for doing the GAN review. I hope this nomination encourages other editors to work on articles on television episodes. Thank you in advance for any comments! Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba47. Having done the GA review only a few days ago, I've nothing to add for the moment but I will keep a watch on this discussion. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you again for the help (and hopefully I have not opened this FAC too soon). I think that is a great idea as it is always help to see what other editors bring up in their reviews. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the comments raised below by LuK3| and the answers by Aoba47, I think the article is as ready as it can be and I support its promotion to FA. It is a very good article. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your support! Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 12:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the image review! Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, great job Aoba47 on a great and informative read. I do have few minor comments:

• Guest appearances in the infobox should be formatted as <actor> as <character> according to Template:Infobox television episode#Parameters.

• Thank you for pointing this out. I am not sure how I missed it. I have corrected it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " The VHS packaging uses the British spelling— "Favourite Son..." Per MOS:EMDASH, there should not be a space on either side of the dash.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it relevant to note the reasoning (if any) to use British spelling instead of American spelling on the VHS release?

• I have done further research on this, and I unfortunately could not find an explanation for this. It is likely a misprint, but that is purely speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead, the last sentence states that critical reception was "mixed" however the section mentions the critical response as "largely negative". Would the cast and crew response warrant a mention in the lead as well?

• I agree with you, especially since the cast and crew response has their own subsection. I have added this to the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Critics disliked the Taresians." seems a little abrupt in my opinion. Maybe a transition from the first paragraph to the Taresians response would work well?

• I have revised this part, but please let me know if any further work is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me, again great work Aoba47. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @LuK3: Thank you for your kind words and your comments. Please let me know if any further work is necessary. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this article for FA promotion. Again, great work! -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the weakest episodes of the weakest series in the franchise, featuring the weakest character, and a plot hole big enough to fly a starship through. The article conveys the process that turned a workable idea into a steaming pile of crap. One can only speculate how much better the episode and the whole series would have been with the original concept. It still left some questions in my mind:

• Any idea why the episode is called "Favourite Son"?

• I could not find an official explanation for the episode title. It is odd to name an episode after a well-known term despite it have no bearing on the plot whatsoever, but the episode as a whole is a mess. It could be something to do with Kim believing he is a member of the alien species and how the women fawn over him, but that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from Lisa Klink, do we know who the other writers referred to as part of the writing team were?

• I could not find exact names. Wang mentioned both studio executives and multiple unnamed writers (likely those who regularly contribute to Vogayer), but does not name any of the people. I have added in a quote from Wang to hopefully clarify this further. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What changes the cast and crew made?

• I could not find any further clarification on what Rush meant by his statement. It is likely that the actors tried to alter their performances to better sell the plot and the crew built the sets and filmed it in a way to get more out of the story than the script had provided for them. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Was the number of reshoots more than for an average episode?

• I could not find a source that explicitly stats that this episode received an unusually large number of reshoots. Most of the focus seems to be on the unusually large number of script rewrites. Wang said that there was a lot of reshoots, but he does not compare it to other Voyager episodes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider moving the first paragraph of "Casting and filming" into the previous section

• Moved. Thank you for the suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• TV tropes refers to the trope as "Lady Land" [12]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I was actually surprised there is not a Wikipedia entry on this trope. I had used the quote because I could not find a wikilink for this. Do you think I should add the TV Tropes link to the article? I am not that familiar with adding external links in the prose. If an article on this trope does not already exist, it could be a fun and interesting article to write in the future Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like a job for Justine Larbalestier Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would love to read that! Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hawkeye7: Thank you for your review. I love Voyager, but it certainly had a lot of issues, and this episode is representative of that. I feel bad for Lisa Klink because it seems like very little if any of her original script survived the rewrites and made it to air. However, it does make for an interesting example of executive meddling. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if anything else can be improved. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Moved to support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your support. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A viewership number isn't a Nielsen rating. Yes, it's according to Nielsen but a rating is a percentage; it's not expressed in millions. I'd reword instances of this to "according to Nielsen, ...". This is a similar case for another featured article of yours, Abby (TV series). The 2.6 and 1.6 aren't viewership, they're the rating.

• Thank you for catching this. I am not sure how I missed that. I am so used to not having the direct number that I just read right over this part. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I don't think url-access=subscription is required for Newspapers.com as they're clippings? Heartfox (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes sense to me. I have removed it. I have only recently started to use clippings so the subscription part is a carry over from when I linked directly to the newspaper which required a subscription to read. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed both of them. Please let me know if anything else needs further improvement. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ensign Harry Kim I suppose this should be altered per MOS:SEAOFBLUE if possible?

• That is a fair point. I have unlinked ensign to avoid this. I have tried to think of ways to reword the sentences in the lead and plot summary, but my revisions always come across as awkward or clumsy so I think unlinking that one word is a simpler solution. Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• placed it in 88th place maybe just "placed it 88th"

• That would be better and more concise. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• is the first instance of ref 30 necessary given it also appears at the end of the very next sentence?

• That was an oversight on my part. I have removed the first instance. Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• streaming video on demand sea of blue

• Thank you for pointing that out as there was a word missing in between the two (i.e. "and"). Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Cinefantastique and writer David A. McIntee both panned "Favorite Son",[9][13] a Star Trek Monthly contributor gave it a more positive review of four out of five stars, which the magazine defined as "Trill-powered viewing".[36] eh... this feels kind of non-neutral to me (two negative opinions made to seem less-than one positive). I'd remove "although" and just separate them with a semi-colon. Maybe I'm just confused I haven't watched any Star Trek and so I didn't really understand the "Trill" reference even with the link

Heartfox (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a fair assessment. It does put too much of my own opinion into the reviews and can be read as favoring one response over another. I agree that a semi-colon is better and more neutral. I have removed the trill reference completely as it is unnecessarily confusing to an unfamiliar reader and it does not add much to the overall sentence. As someone that has only seen Voyager, I'd be hard-pressed to define what a trill is myself since they do not appear in this installment of Star Trek.
• I have a quick question about these two sentences. I do not have access to any of these three sources. I included the Star Trek Monthly one because it was the only favorable review that I could find for this episode (at least from a reliable source). Do you think I should keep this part? I am only wondering because all I can say is that they gave a positive/negative review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, how did you add the info if you "do not have access"? I'm confused.

I think it's okay to keep them. The other reviews described do give more specific details, so as long as the whole section isn't just x said it was good, y said it was bad (without saying why), I would personally keep them. Heartfox (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thank you for the response. I know about the reviews from the Memory Alpha entry on the episode, but I could not track down the full reviews for them. Aoba47 (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: well in that case I would remove them as Memory Alpha is on Fandom and Fandom is considered generally unreliable per WP:RSPSOURCES and (even though they're probably correct) this is for FA so...

• @Heartfox: Understood. Removed that part. Aoba47 (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the promotion of this article. Heartfox (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the review. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with any Wikipedia work. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be doing the 'source review. I used two citation bots for both archiving and fixing any issue. I was wondering about IMDb as a source but it seems it is well handled by the article. Every source is reliable and the citations are quite consistent. As as a result, I'll give it a direct pass. Good luck with this article Aoba.Tintor2 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your help and using the citation bots. I have immense respect for the editors that put together the citation bots. I included the IMDb ranking because it was discussed in by a third-party, but I think it is always good to pay close attention to how IMDb is used. I have added a part about when IMDb ranking was published as I am not sure if that is subject to change. I do not think it is (particularly for an older show like this), but I wanted to play on the safe side. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, well done on an excellent article. With no background in Star Trek, I was easily able to follow along. Hopefully I can provide the insight of a casual reader. Please let me know if there's a specific section you would like feedback on from an outside reader. I have also worked backwards through the article, apologies.

• I have just scanned through the references and I believe that any mention of Star Trek or Star Trek: Voyager in reference to the television series should be italicised; I believe even if the published article title doesn't follow that protocol.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ruditis 2003, pp. 170-171. The dash should be – , check this for others, but I think you're okay.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "compared the plot negatively" I don't like "negatively", maybe "she unfavourably compared the plot to..."?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "with Harry Kim put in a role similar to Odysseus" Is there a better word for "put"? "Placed", "adapted" or "his role paralleling that of..."?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you place a brief description such as "the Sirens from the epic poem Homer's Odyssey"?

• Revised. Although I did not use a link for epic poem to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "rather than featuring the female captain" Remove "featuring" or change to "utilising" or "making use of"?

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, I really dislike "put" in "forgot to put alien writing on". You could write "inscribe" to make it sound more professional. Also, what is alien writing? Symbols, hieroglyph, emblems? Yes, the quote mentions "Sharpies" but can the article paraphrase to "black markers" or something similar? This sentence just reads like a Twitter anecdote.

• Revised. I can remove this part completely if you find it too trivial. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rush had some difficulty with the Taresian actresses... I had to do a little convincing, but we got there" Have I missed something? As I am unsure what the "convincing" and "difficulty" is all about... especially as it is the start of a new section.

• I have copy-edited this part to hopefully be clearer. Rush is referencing how the actresses were uncomfortable playing more sexualized roles. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "more action and sex". Did the executives want sex in the episode, or sex appeal?

• The episode does include a few on the nose sexual references, but since sex is not shown on the episode itself, I've changed it to sex appeal to better reflect the actual content. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that I couldn't find much to critique - I really had to nit-pick. This article is very well written and I will be happy to lend my support to it. I appreciate your support on my featured article review as well. SatDis (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @SatDis: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if anything else requires further improvement. I can remove the Twitter part completely as it was a later addition, but I wanted to get your feedback before making a decision on my own. I will look at your FAC by the end of this week at the latest. Thank you again, and I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent job revising those suggestions. I think the reword of the Twitter note makes it sound a lot more notable, and definitely worth keeping. Well done, happy to support this article. Thanks again! SatDis (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rush focused on treating the Taresians" What does that mean?

• Thank you for pointing this out. I am not sure how I missed it. I must have accidentally delete a part while revising this section. I have revised this part some what and included a quote to hopefully clarify the meaning. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "he had some difficulty with the Taresian actresses" That sounds a little strong -- and they're not Taresian actresses, they're human actresses! I confess the whole paragraph makes me cringe a little, but maybe that's just because you're quoting interviews from the '90s.

• Apologies for that. It was not my intention and if there is anything in the prose that contributes to the cringe, then please let me know. I have attempted to revise this part, but let me know if further work is necessary.
• Looking back on the source, I realize Rush attributed his difficulty to the episode itself and how to best portray these female characters and not the actresses. Unfortunately, a certain amount of cringe is unavoidable with this episode. The Geisha comparison was the one that really made me roll my eyes. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Prior to the episode's production, Kathryn Janeway's actor Kate Mulgrew said Star Trek: Voyager and the Odyssey both use "mythic storytelling"." I am not quite sure the point of this sentence.

• Removed. It was something added in one of my early drafts for the article, but I forgot about it later. It is not really about the episode and was from my research on Voyager's connections to the Odyssey. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pleased the sexism of the plot is acknowledged. I wonder if a note about sexism and the fact fans seem to hate it is worth mentioning in the lead? Just thinking aloud -- I appreciate that the lead is already long.

• I am glad that the plot's sexism is discussed in sources (both popular and scholarly). I have added a part to the lead, and changed a part in the "Critical reception" subsection to match this. Please let me know if this needs further improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to insist on anything, but it is not usual to provide locations/publishers for journals/magazines in reference lists. Meanwhile, it is usual to provide locations and publishers for books. At the moment, you don't seem to be consistent on what you're providing and when.

• There is nothing with insisting as I want the articles (and citations) to be in the best shape. I have removed the locations, but kept the publishers to be consistent with the books. I can remove the publishers from the journals/magazines though if necessary.

• "From the Replicator" is included in the bibliography, but is not cited.

• Removed as that citation is no longer used in the article. Apologies for forgetting to remove it when I removed the in-text citation. Aoba47 (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @J Milburn: Thank you for your help with the article. Your copy-edits have helped to improve the article immensely. I have tried my best to address your above comments, but I would more than happy to do further revision. I find this episode fascinating because it is really representative of Voyager's behind-the-scenes issues while also being a time capsule on how women were represented in the 90s. Female representation can definitely be improved further, but looking back at this episode does make me realize at least some progress has been made. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only nit I can find to pick is:

• Harv ref error: Baker, Djoymi (2018). To Boldly Go: Marketing the Myth of Star Trek. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78831-008-6. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBaker2018.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for pointing this out, and apologies for that. I somehow completely skipped this citation while writing the article. I have pulled information from the source and attempted to incorporate it into the article. I will look through it again tomorrow to clean up the prose. It is quite interesting because it adds to the point on how this episode connects with other moments in the Star Trek franchise. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @FAC coordinators: Sorry for the ping, but I wanted to check on this nomination's status as it has received a fair amount of commentary/support and had a source review and an image review. I hope everyone is doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Good morning! The next time I have a chance to go through the list (likely tomorrow or Friday) I will assess whether it's ready for promotion. Unless one of my fellow coords goes through before that. --Laser brain (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the response, and apologies again. I was just curious about it, and I am not in any rush with this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2020 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [13].

---

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little known but important episode in US history. The article has, perhaps, not the most impressive of titles, but tells of the only congressional election in US history to feature two future presidents, James Madison and James Monroe. Madison was the victor of this battle fought one cold Virginia winter, and had he not been in Congress to use his influence to fight for the Bill of Rights, the key issue in this campaign, it might not have passed.Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

• File:James Monroe Portrait.jpg no source for this image showing it is PD
  • OK, this is the only outstanding issue from the image review. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It's not in the article anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The state of Virginia - from the best authorities - by Samuel Lewis, 1809; Smither, sculpt. NYPL465078.tiff — has accessibility issues due to being a very large file. Suggest using a cropped jpg or png for a lower filesize.

I don't think a crop would be helpful because there were no state lines near the Fifth District. As for a jpg, the best I could do is screenshot the tif, which strikes me as rather crude. Open to suggestions.

I just meant crop out the areas that weren't part of the map. Anyway, I was able to create a jpg using GIMP. The filesize was reduced from 80mb to 2mb without reducing map detail. (t · c) buidhe 05:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:James Madison portrait, U.S. House of Representatives.jpg Appears to be copyrighted, although you can use the original. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the Madison and Monroe images in the infobox, which was added recently and not by me. I doubt an infobox is that useful, but I'm not getting into that. Note my comment above re the map. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There appears to be a rounding error in Madison's infobox percentage
• The lead says Madison got frostbite from the debate, while the text says it was from riding home afterwards - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with these. Thank you for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I checked the image that was added, and it is also freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

• I think it would be worth mentioning in the lead that the election was to the First Congress; no doubt a US reader would know that, but I didn't.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The map is good to have, but can we also get one that shows the district that's easy to read? A modern map outlining the (current) counties comprising the district would be fine. I wouldn't oppose over this.

  I don't have a better one. Four of the counties in the district have split into two counties, plus there are the independent cities of Fredericksburg and Charlottesville that have split off from their counties. And since the Fifth District was not near a state line, I wonder if a map detailed enough to be helpful at thumbnail size would really help the reader unfamiliar with Virginia. I'm open to ideas.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I sometimes think that one paid service that the WMF could provide is a full-time mapmaker who could create maps for high-profile articles, or FAC or GAN nominations. It's a specialist skill, with high value to the reader, and surely not controversial enough. Anyway, no problem for this article, just a nice-to-have if a map is ever available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the map: One could be based on the one here; the Fifth District is the one in the middle with red in its southwest corner that is above the one that is almost entirely brown.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That links to this which per this page has a Creative Commons licence. I'm no image expert but I think that could be used at least on the 1789 Virginia elections page, and I think it would work on this page too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added this image. I'd like the image reviewer, buidhe, to take a look at it (and also check the one remaining issue in the original review). My thanks to both of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I see Buidhe's approved it; outstanding. I think that's a great addition, and perhaps that site will be a source for other articles about early US elections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But he felt it to be important that Congress proposed them, rather than an Article V convention favored by the Anti-Federalists such as Monroe, feeling that route to be the quickest, easiest, and safest means of passage. It took me a moment to parse this and realize that the last clause is Madison's opinion, not Monroe's. Suggest: "But he felt it to be important that Congress proposed them, feeling that route to be a quicker, easier, and safer means of passage than an Article V convention, which was favored by the Anti-Federalists such as Monroe." That has "felt/feeling"; perhaps "considered it important"?

Done that using "believing".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come; still reading but I have guests arriving shortly so it will probably be tomorrow before I can add to this. It's very good so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done up to date, thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

• In the negative campaigning paragraph you list two accusations made by Monroe's supporters, with parenthetical explanations. The first one explains the basis for the accusation ("he had supported including such a power...") but the second one seems to contradict the accusation. I was expecting some parallelism here -- that is, an explanation for why it was claimed he pronounced the Constitution perfect, or else something like "(in this case there was no basis for the accusation)" or "(he had done so, but had subsequently admitted...)".

I've clarified that the basis was that he had been against amendments, and his opponents used that against him.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be a contradiction to say that Monroe was initially taken by surprise by Madison's idea of campaigning via letters, but then to say that Monroe took this approach "from the first days of the race".

The quote from McGrath is “Knowing he was no orator of Patrick Henry’s caliber, Madison bombarded the district with a letter-writing campaign, arguing for his beloved Constitution. Taken unawares, Monroe responded with his own broadside of letters.” I guess this was still "the first days of the race". The campaign did not have a formal beginning, I suppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it I think this is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• did not provide sufficient protection to their religious liberty: I think "of" or "for" would read more naturally than "to". I didn't copyedit this in case it's a common usage I'm just not familiar with.

"For" is probably the better of the two.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Monroe stated of Madison, "It would have given me concern to have excluded him." I'm not sure I follow -- Monroe is saying he would have been sorry to have won?

He's writing to Jefferson so he's putting the best face on the situation. It's the same letter as quoted earlier to the effect that those who were impressed with him sort of dragged him into the race.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You used "noted" in quoting two historians at the end of the article; "note" carries an implication that what follows is definitely true, rather than just an opinion, so I would suggest something like "commented" instead.

I've used that and similar synonyms.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I see "Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=" against the DeRose and Labunski sources at the end of the article. I opened up the section to see if it was an easy fix but whatever is causing it appears to be buried in the sfnref template.

I don't see any cite errors and the citation appears normal to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently what's going on. It seems to be not something you did, so I'm going to ignore it, but perhaps someone who knows more about the way these things work will come along and fix it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it now. I doubled the "|" and thus it is detecting an empty parameter. They should be fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see. A very engaging read about something I knew nothing about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've addressed or responded to each item, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very easy read, well-organized and well-written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the sources appear reliable.
• Formatting looks correct, but I wonder why you didn't put the sources in footnotes 2, 3, 13, and 20 below and link to them by a short cite, as you did with the rest.

I've done that for the books. For the other two, which are brief bios of Madison and Monroe before their presidencies, I generally don't put single-page web pages into the bibliography.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The vote numbers match those in the article cited. Other than that, spotchecks not done, but I could do them if necessary. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except as noted, done. Thanks for the source review. Hope you're doing well and staying safe.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hope you're well, too. I'm hoping to be on here more again, so I'll see you around. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. My support is based on prose and (from my POV) reader engagement; its a gripping read, depicts realpolitik at its rawest and is wonderfully told. Am impressed that you kept the article relatively short when it could have been bogged down with dry facts, rather than paced by narrative thrust. Made light copyedits, nothing major, feel free to revert. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As a resident of a county adjacent to this congressional district, how can I resist reviewing this article?
• A bit too much detail in the second para of the lede, IMO. I'd suggest deleting all after Monroe campaigning.
• Link Sect'y of State, President
• I have no other comments other than to say, "Very well done". I'll withold supporting until I reread it in a few days on the off-chance that I see something that I missed this time through.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten these covered. I did keep one sentence in the lede. I think something has to be said about the campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. My county's three away from the district.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this soon. Might claim it for the WikiCup, or I might not. TBD on that front, but I've still got to make the disclosure. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get a better source for the Monroe infobox picture than "own work"? The image is clearly PD, but I'm not so sure that's the best way to put that

I've changed it to the painter's name

• Link Anti-Federalists at the first mention in the body

Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although defeated for Congress, Monroe's frequent court appearances kept him in the public eye in Virginia." - Maybe it's just a comprehension issue for me, but it's unclear to me what court apperances these are referring to.

As a lawyer. Clarified.

• "Riding away afterwards, likely home to Montpelier, Madison suffered a frostbitten nose. In his old age, former president Madison would tell the story of that night, and point to the left side of his nose" - So is the note saying there's ambiguity where Madison was frostbitten, or where he would point?

He would point at the injury site. It's a question of who you believe. I find the ear in William Rives's bio in the 1860s and the nose in Gaillard Hunt's of 1902. They may go further back and I don't know of any way of determining this with certainty. I did look at a couple of paintings of Madison but they were no help and paintings tend to flatter. It's too good a story to ignore.

• Maybe this is common practice, but I'm pretty sure that Virginia did not have an official state flag in 1789, so that flag in the infobox is a bit on an anachronism.

Cut. I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on this one. That's all I've got to say, and most of these are probably just comprehension issues on my end. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Hog Farm. Thanks for the review and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Very interesting and informative read. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:43, 23 October 2020 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [14].

---

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Raw was one of the Royal Australian Air Force's leading pilots during the post-war era, but turned in a mixed performance in an important command role during the Vietnam War. He cut his teeth, and demonstrated remarkable skill and bravery, as a bomber pilot during World War II and remained in the air force after the war. He placed second in the 1953 London to Christchurch air race and commanded the RAAF's first jet bomber squadron. In 1966 he was posted to South Vietnam to coordinate air support for the Australian Army force there. He was not well suited to this role, and ended up in frequent shouting matches with his Army counterpart. This culminated in a bitter argument during the crucial Battle of Long Tan where Raw was probably wrongly perceived to be reluctant to risk RAAF helicopters to save an Army unit which was close to being overrun. After completing his posting to Vietnam, Raw served in administrative roles and commanded the RAAF's base in Malaysia.

I created this article in 2011 (before Raw's Australian Dictionary of Biography entry was published), and have worked on it on and off since then. It was assessed as a GA in 2013 and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in 2014. The article has since been considerably expanded and improved, and the recent digitisation of back issues of the RAAF's in-house newspaper make me feel confident that I haven't missed anything significant. As such, I think that the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

• Images are freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this check Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a look later. Might be claimed for WikiCup points. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Optional, since this is given in the date range, but maybe tack on that he died in Richmond in 1988 to finish off the lead.
  • The lead doesn't say where he was born either - I don't think that either fact needs to be in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early career

• Why did the RAN reject him?
  • The source doesn't say. The RAN and RAAF had more volunteers than they could handle at this stage of the war, so I suspect the Navy was being choosy. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Raw completed his training and was commissioned as an officer in December that year" - What specific rank? Based on ref 9, he was an F.O. (I'm assuming Flying officer) by the time of the 166 holes in the fuselage incident, but it's not clear when he was promoted to this rank. A little more detail on his various early-war ranks and promotions would be helpful. The source given for the engagement places him as a flying officer at that time.
  • He started out as a pilot officer - added. None of the sources say when he became a Flying Officer, and unfortunately his personal file at the National Archives of Australia hasn't yet been digitialised.
• "He assumed command of No. 205 Group Communication Squadron in 1945" - Where was this unit based?
  • The sources don't say, and I can't find anything about this unit. Italy most likely. Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Did he get the DFC for a specific action?
  • The nomination states that it was for "exceptional skill on [a] notable tour of operations" - added. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commanding officer

• Are there any further details about what he did between 1957 and 1960? It's pretty thin in there.
  • I've added the only mention of him in the Australian media I could find, which was pretty marginal for inclusion. The coverage of Raw's career is heavily focused on his flying roles and role in the Vietnam War, and there's not much on his staff and training positions. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent career

• Did he do anything after retiring from the air force? Did he move to Richmond after the retirment? It's a little bare in the 1978-1988 time frame, too.
  • No source discusses this unfortunately. I suspect that he just retired, and then died at a young age. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first round of comments. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Can I please check whether I've addressed your comments, and if you have any others? Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is in great shape. A few comments:

Lead

• suggest "He saw combat as a bomber pilot in the European theatre in the later stages of World War II"
  • Partly done - the next para notes his war service in more detail Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine, but did he really "see combat" in Vietnam? I think it would be better to go with something like "He saw combat in the European theatre during the later stages of World War II and was in a senior command position during the early stages of the Australian involvement in the Vietnam War." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the sources state that flew on helicopter and Caribou combat missions and got shot at during Operation Hayman. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, but I didn't emphasise that my main concern is that his role in Vietnam should be more precise in the first para. He was there in a senior command position, the combat was incidental. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've tweaked the wording to clarify his roles in the wars - does this look OK? Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's exactly what I was thinking of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• say what sort of squadron No. 2 was when he commanded it, including aircraft flown
• same for No. 82 Wing
  • Both done Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• for Australian forces in South Vietnam link Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• suggest "generated lasting controversy, and contributed to the later decision to transfer battlefield helicopters to Army control."
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body

• Use his full name at the beginning of the Early career section, otherwise it is uncited
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• link Apprenticeship and Electrical artificer
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• was commissioned as an officer, pilot officer? If so, when was he promoted to flying officer?
  • Per the review above, I've been able to confirm he started as a PO but can't find a source with the date of promotion to FO. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• why link Romania but not Hungary?
  • Delinked Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• what did No. 205 Group Communication Squadron do?
  • I'm not sure I'm afraid - I've looked extensively for this, but with no luck. I'd be guessing that it undertook miscellaneous light transport and liaison duties with light aircraft and castoffs like the RAAF's communications units did (which are themselves very obscure). This source hints at this role for the squadron when it was a flight. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• what was the DFC for?
  • Added per the above review. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "was appointed the commanding officer of No. 2 Squadron" say what sort of squadron it was at the time
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "He regularly flew combat missions" did that mean he was trained as a helicopter pilot?
  • No source says what this involved, unfortunately. It doesn't seem that he was ever trained as a helicopter pilot so he possibly served as an observer of sorts. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure about the timeline here. AFAIK No. 9 Squadron started flying missions on 30 June 1966, so if "there were tensions between the Army and RAAF over the employment of No. 9 Squadron" when Raw arrived, when did he arrive exactly? The article implies May, so this really doesn't work.
• wasn't there also a Dept of Air directive that peacetime regs applied? See Eather, quoted in the No. 9 Squadron article.
  • That's noted in the article. The regulations weren't quite peacetime, but they were unrealistic (Alan Stephens is quite scathing about how badly prepared the squadron was for combat due to the RAAF's misconception that the war wasn't a big deal). Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There were only 108 men of D Coy, 6 RAR at Long Tan, not 200.
• Given the Warsaw airlift was a airdrop operation, I don't see how Clark could conclude "his experiences in the Warsaw airlift meant that he understood the dangers facing the helicopter pilots". I would have thought flying helicopters into a ground battle is a completely different kettle of fish.
  • I've added more material about the Warsaw airlift - the point Clark is making is that Raw had flown very difficult and risky transport missions so understood that the helicopter pilots lives were at great danger if he gave the resupply mission the go-ahead. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be worth looking at Scott's memo, reproduced as an appendix in McAulay, which gives the RAAF line on the situation on No. 9 Squadron support to 1 ATF immediately before Long Tan. I also wonder if we are getting a mainly RAAF perspective on No. 9 Squadron at Long Tan given the sources used are all RAAF-oriented. I've checked Duty First and it is silent. Could you have a look at the official history volume by McNeill and see what it says, and perhaps the other books written on Long Tan?
  • In response to the above comments, I've reworked the two paras on No. 9 Squadron and the Battle of Long Tan, including by expanding this out to three paras. Interestingly, Stephens (the official RAAF historian) is more scathing about the state of the squadron and the RAAF high command than any other source! McNeill and David W. Cameron provide a less sympathetic portrayal of Raw though which I've tried to work in. It seems that he was out of his depth during the battle, but took only slightly too long to make the right decision. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The new version implies that the same choppers flew the casevac mission, whereas it was actually those two plus another five. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, yes that's right - the official history's wording was vague. I've clarified this, and noted Raw's role in the second mission. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• was Operation Hayman a US or Australian op?
  • Australian - clarified. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The motivation for Army to take over battlefield helicopters is essentially ascribed to Long Tan, but there was more to it, and I think this is a simplification. There are plenty of journal articles and media releases about the decision, which should be consulted and reflected in the article to give a less RAAF-centric perspective.
  • Yes, good point. I've tweaked the wording here to make it clearer that Long Tan was only part of the factors which motivated this viewpoint and it was a recommendation in the Dibb Report which proved crucial. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I note that the ADB says Raw "hesitated" rather than refused regarding Long Tan. I wonder if the Long Tan para couldn't be more closely cited.
  • Good point - the issue is that he was initially hesitant, but gave the go ahead after consultations. I've tweaked the wording here. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peacemaker67: Thanks a lot for this review. Per the above, I've reworked the Vietnam section which I think makes for a stronger article - I'd be grateful for your thoughts and any further comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about putting the NM in the infobox, it is a long service award. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of additional things. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Supporting this excellent article for promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Trove refs should consistently use |via= for the NLA credit rather than |publisher=
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• FN4 appears incomplete
  • @Nikkimaria: The source here is a small folder of news clippings held by the National Library of Australia. I've tweaked the article to reflect the NLA's catalogue entry. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So there's no indication of where this particular clipping is actually from originally? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent in when newspaper titles are linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delinked all. Thanks for this review. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing coord duties, I took part in the MilHist ACR way back when, and have kept an eye on the article ever since. Having copyedited a little before this nom, and again just now, I have the following comments:

• I would've thought it was worth putting No. 178 Squadron under Units in the infobox.
  • The guidance for this infobox states that the 'unit' field should only be used 'for persons who are not notable as commanding officers'. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well there you go, I always assumed it wasn't an either-or thing, you'd use this for units they belonged to without commanding, and the other for units they did command -- I guess no-one else knows about this 'cos I've always used both in "my" military bio FAs... ;-)
• I notice you haven't included any Gazette refs. While three of the four I found don't really add to what you have, the DFC one includes a full citation that gives you more to work with than you have now, and includes an intriguing reference to Ploesti that could also be worth mentioning at this point.
  • I'm not familiar with navigating the London Gazette, and didn't have any luck with it - thanks. I've added material from the DFC citation, which is quite interesting as it's explicitly for the entire combat tour and notes his success as a leader of his bomber crew - this helps to explain why he made the cut for the post-war RAAF and was then given choice assignments. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• He regularly flew combat missions with the UH-1 Iroquois -- since it appears unlikely he was ever at the controls, would it be worth tweaking to "flew on combat missions", or "accompanied combat missions"?
  • Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• the relationship between Raw and senior Army commanders in 1 ATF was "most difficult" throughout the remainder of his time in South Vietnam -- I'd usually recommend attributing a quote inline (though I have little doubt it's Clark) but in this case since it's just two words I wonder if we could paraphrase ("strained" perhaps, or even "very strained"?).
  • 'Strained' seems the most appropriate word here. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Raw's initial reluctance to commit helicopters reinforced the perception among some Army officers that the RAAF was reluctant to support their service in battle -- could we avoid the "reluctance"/"reluctant" repetition?
  • Yep - changed to 'hesitance'. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it, except to say no concerns with the breadth and quality of the sources -- shame that we can't pinpoint a few more precise dates but you can only work with what you have and I don't think anything vital is missing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Ian. It's a shame that his NAA file hasn't been digitised yet, which would help greatly with dates. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks for all that, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've made a couple of minor copyedits. Other than that I can only find one thing to complain about, which doesn't affect my support.

• fostered an enthusiastic aircrew: I know what you mean but I think the wording isn't quite right. One fosters enthusiasm, not a crew.

A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Belated thanks Mike. I've tweaked the wording to take the above comment into account. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The tweak looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I have only a few minor comments...

• London to Christchurch (x3) v London-to-Christchurch (x2)
  • Removed the dashes Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• task force v Task Force
  • Standardised on caps except for the quote where the author didn't use them Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• new speed record for a flight between New Zealand and Australia, completing the crossing between Auckland and Sydney in two hours and 49 minutes. - maybe needs context eg at average 500 mph and/or distance? I.e., was it a record time rather than a record speed he reached at some time during the flight? Do we know what the previous time record was?
  • Tweaked to clarify that it was the fastest crossing to that time Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• air/land warfare - no link available to explain what this term refers to?
  • Linked to Close air support and Air assault as we don't seem to have a single article on the use of aircraft and transport helicopters to support Army units. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• He regularly on flew combat missions - flew on? (or is that jargon?)
  • oops, yes - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Australian Army is linked only in lede
  • Linked in the Vietnam section Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• with Raw personally briefing the crews - "personally" redundant (though I understand if there for emphasis)?
  • Yeah, I included this for emphasis given that it illustrates that he played a particularly active role in this battle after a rocky start (briefings like this would usually be handled by the squadron operations order or squadron commander at the highest, not a senior officer). Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "the relationship between Raw and senior Army commanders in 1 ATF was strained " ... "did lead to a better working relationship" - any way to avoid 2 x relationship? Maybe even 'working relations'?
  • Tweaked. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• was better suited to operations in Papua New Guinea - explain why PNG came into consideration. Is the relevance for aid, training, highlands? Maybe add 'Australian administered'. (Can't have readers thinking we were at war with PNG!)
  • Done - and corrected the name of the place at the time to Territory of Papua and New Guinea Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Raw further stated that there was - swap "further stated" to said?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Raw was portrayed in Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan (by Christopher Sommers) per this but I can't find an RS.
  • Yeah, I'm not sure if it's worth noting though given it doesn't seem to have been a major role/character in the movie given that lack of sourcing (I haven't seen the film, though I understand that it's pretty good).
• Cite 25 The Advertiser. 1 January 1954. p. 3 - not a link to dab but add Adelaide?
  • It was just called 'The Advertiser" at the time. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else I can find, regards JennyOz (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for this review Jenny. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nick, all good and I'm happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2020 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [15].

---

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk), The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another step towards that elusive featured topic, for the world's richest association football (soccer) match. This is a joint nomination, most of the hard work was done by Kosack and I tagged along for the ride to hopefully get it up to snuff for FAC. A ding-dong of a game, at least in the first half, and "little old" Blackpool's zenith of glory for 40 years. Both nominators will work tirelessly to assuage reviewers' concerns, as ever, and thanks in advance for all the time and effort everyone puts into the review. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination may be used in the WikiCup competition. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Images appear to be freely licensed, the only issue is that File:Blackpool vs Cardiff 2010-05-22.svg should indicate the source for the players' positions in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 01:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks for taking a look so quick. I can provide sources for the image, but where is best to place them? When you say in the image description, do you mean on the page itself or over at Commons where the image is hosted? Kosack (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image description on Commons. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Kosack (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've made some edits. A cracking article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Amakuru

• Route to the final:
  • "level with Leicester City in fifth" - maybe "level on points"? Because obviously they weren't level overall, as they finished higher.

    Would cause a problematic repeat of "points" in the sentence. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cardiff's superior goal difference gave them the advantage over Leicester, and thus they received home advantage in the second leg" - the last part of this doesn't appear to be cited. Also, and this is probably an irrelevant aside, but to a newcomer it might not be clear why being at home in the second leg is an advantage. Some clubs might prefer to race out of the blocks with a home first leg for example and presumably the system doesn't give them that choice?

    I've removed the sentence. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Peter Whittingham who scored" - maybe a comma before "who".

    Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "scoring to double Cardiff's lead in the tie" - maybe a link to Two-legged tie, for those who don't know the meaning of this (and to avoid confusion with Tie (draw).

    Two-legged tie is already linked. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    True, but this is also the first occurrence of the actual word "tie" in the article. I don't know what the solution is, but I feel like some clarification is needed, particularly as this is a term often used for something completely different. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It had already been reworded but I've reworded the only other instance of tie for your delectation. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also this paragraph says "the tie" five times -might be worth rewording if possible to avoid repetition.

    Reduced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ""With the away goals rule not in effect in the Football League play-offs" - needs a cite.

    Yeah, difficult so removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've restored this one with a ref from the EFL which should suffice. Kosack (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • More to follow!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Background:
  • Giving the locations where the officials hail form seems a bit overkill to me, and other than Mike Jones I'm not sure the localities are even sourced. And it's unclear why the link to Birmingham County Football Association says for Marriner "West Midlands". I guess either remove them (my preference), or else source them and give the correct names for the affiliated county.

    I'm not sure I agree on removing the affiliations as the locations are who the referees are representing rather than just localities. I've added refs for the assistant locations and amended Marriner to Birmingham. I'm not sure of the reason but Marriner is listed as West Midlands in quite a few match reports I can find rather than Birmingham. However, the Premier League website that I added does list him as Birmingham. Kosack (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing else really in this section. It seems slightly short, but I guess everything else that might go there is covered elsewhere...
• Pre-match:
  • And actually, following on from the comment above this one, I'm slightly confused now. Because most of this section up to around "when his Queens Park Rangers side lost in extra-time" sounds like "Background" to me. Other than the thing about the anthem, which is pre-match, the detail on previous matches at Wembley and the £5 million reward for being promoted refer to things tha thappened at the start of the season or earlier, which while technically "pre-match" isn't what is usually meant by that term. Maybe just rejig a bit so those bits are in "Background", then you'll probably have two sections of roughly equal length?

    I've reordered the sections to hopefully even this up. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Promotion" is first mentioned in the "Route to the final" section, so probably link it there rather than here.

    Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "£90 million for winning the match and the subsequent promotion to the Premier League" - my understanding is that this isn't money directly earned by the promotion, but perhaps a combination of that and increased TV money etc, which is described at 1993 Football League First Division play-off Final as "increases in matchday, commercial and broadcasting income". Might be worth clarifying this here.

    Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 27: Probably not a controversial fact, but the Daily Express shouldn't really be used for sourcing per WP:RSP#Daily Express. The main point, that the anthem was not played, is covered by the Telegraph ref [28], although I suppose the point about "antagonising Cardiff's fans" is not directly covered there...

    Removed the Express and the brief part it covered. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "set to be shared among the players" - you could lose the "set" here, we already know the pay-out was conditional.

    Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "commenting "if anyone deserves it..." - maybe "commenting that"?

    Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "extra-time": other places in the article say "extra time". Make consistent.

    Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cardiff kept their team hotel location secret in order to avoid any attempts of a retaliation attempt by fans of Queens Park Rangers following an incident prior to the 2003 play-off final when the two sides met in which a Cardiff fan was arrested after triggering a false fire alarm call at the Rangers' team hotel during the night prior to the match" - this is a very long sentence, without even a comma to break it up! Consider rewording a little to break it up.

    Split. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "If it goes off, it goes off; but I think there is enough security there" - since a whole sentence is quoted here (and indeed part of the previous sentence), I think that maywebe the full stop should be inside the quote rather than outside it, per MOS:LQ.

    Done. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's it for now, more to follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Finished up all these points, cheers. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary:
  • "Cardiff kicked off the match" - is it cited, that Cardiff were the team to kick-off? Not seeing that in the BBC source, but maybe I missed it somewhere!

    Added source. Kosack (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "They began the match as the more attacking of the teams" - the previous sentence also says "the match"; slightly repetitive.

    Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "However, four minutes later" - not sure "However" is really needed here. Or perhaps it would work better as an infix - "Four minutes later, however, ..." Dunno, it just sounds slightly odd at present.

    Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was adjudged to have deliberately handled the ball by Marriner, the referee" - we already know Marriner is the referee. Maybe "was adjudged by Marriner to have deliberately handled the ball"?

    Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "who had scored the winning penalty in the first leg of the play-off semi-final" - just wondering if this is really relevant here? We did already note that he scored that penalty in the earlier section, and penalties and free-kicks aren't the same thing...

    Removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Blackpool were able to establish themselves in the game" - probably just splitting hairs here, but given that they already scored an equalising goal, hadn't they already "established themselves"?

    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "... as Cardiff adjusted to the change, as Stephen Crainey ..." - repetition of "as"

    Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Details:
  • Just wondering if the formation of the players on the field is cited?

    The image file has three citations attached to it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ditto the "match rules"

    Added a source for the extra-time etc. Not sure how to reference the number of substitutes other than perhaps the fact the match reports show how many were named? Is that necessary? Kosack (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that's fine - it's a very minor point anyway, and that report will be adequate. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-match:
  • "to around 16,000" - according to the source, the exact figure is 16,750, which is closer to 17,000 than 16,000. Could just give the exact figure.

    Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Emmanuel-Thomas and the unnamed player would accept a lower payout" - better as just "Emmanuel-Thomas and the unnamed player accepted a lower payout..." I think

    Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead:
  • "two places above in fourth" - maybe "above them" instead of just "above"?

    Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "in front of more than 82,000 spectators" - might as well state the exact number, since it is known.

    Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "in normal time" - this kind of feels like it needs a link, in case readers don't know what "normal time" means. Not sure how mind you, as normal time itself is a redlink. Something to think about anyway.

    Added to glossary. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "just over 16,000" - per the above point, the figure is closer to 17,000 than 16,000. Also, if the body says "around 16,000" then the lead can't really say "just over", because those are slightly different things.
  • That's about it, I think!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I've done most of the trivial stuff, Kosack I've left the hard ones! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished up the last few. Kosack (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy turnaround, guys. It looks up to snuff to me now, so happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• between Blackpool and Cardiff City. - on first use is it worth saying Cardiff City F.C.? To denote it isn't the places playing a game of football? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the same could be said of Blackpool. I think the links and the context (and the fact that most sports fans know that a team name doesn't denote the "place") means this is okay as it stands. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it worth mentioning the score in the first para? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's mentioned in the lead in a reasonable place, and also in the infobox, I think it's clear enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Worth mentioning the Leicester score in the penalties in the lede? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think so. Penalty shootout scores are seldom remarkable unless they get to 13–12 or something. This was very run-of-the-mill, the main point was that it was a penalty shootout, i.e. it was 50/50. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need to say "normal time"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I don't think we do, removed, slight reword. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we link the First Division in lede? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• . They were relegated back to the Championship after a single season. Cardiff reached the play-offs again the following season but were defeated in the semi-finals. - this is straight after talking about 1970-71, might need to identify the year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair spot, modified wording. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blackpool were paired with - paired against. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Interestingly I think both are the same in this context but reworded to avoid this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• and level with Leicester City - level on points, they weren't identical in records. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "on points" added. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• is "intense pressure" a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Kosack I couldn't easily that from the ref? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a direct quote, just a bit of summarising on my behalf. The match report mentions numerous attempts by Leicester towards the end with phrases such as "one of a host of chances for the rampant hosts in a frantic final 10 minutes". Kosack (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Marshall then saved from Martyn Waghorn - a little casual wording. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps mention the actual cost of Chopra. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Added. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski cheers, much appreciated, I've addressed all bar one issue above which I've asked Kosack to comment on/address. Many thanks for your review. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Championship play-off finals - is it "Final" in this context? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Without the specific context, I'm not sure, if you're referring to "The Championship play-off finals are considered one of ..." then this relates to the general concept of the finals, that they are most valuable matches in the world. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I was just referring to the capitalisation. We have "play-off Final" elsewhere, so just wondered if there was a reason for lowercase Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• fans threaten a possible "revenge attack". - I know this is a lot of people saying this, but who summarised this quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think attribution is clear enough here without needing to do that. Ref 4 is clearly the Telegraph and "Rangers' internet message boards had seen fans threaten" is clear. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!)

• Worth linking "free-kick"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Linked first time. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "smallest club to reach the Premier League".[38 - can we just quote "smallest club"? Which is the important part? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• play-offs in 2011–12 - surely the play-off was just in 2012. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, quite so. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski I'm done on the second set, thanks very much. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski hey dude, have we addressed your concerns? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to get to this tomorrow, will likely be claimed in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some minor formatting inconsistencies. For instance, BBC Sport is not linked in ref 9, but it's linked in about all the other instances.

  Linked ref 9. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get a location for the Saunders book?

  Added. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm familiar with most of these sources, but not with Soccerbase or the Football Club History Database. The latter appears to be self-published. Soccerbase looks to be a sports betting site. What makes either of these high-quality RS?

  These two were recently addressed at another FAC HERE, and I believe they are both widely used and well regarded sources. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

• "Cardiff kept their team hotel location secret in order to avoid any attempts of a retaliation attempt by fans of Queens Park Rangers. This followed an incident prior to the 2003 play-off final when the two sides met in which a Cardiff fan was arrested after triggering a false fire alarm call at the Rangers' team hotel during the night prior to the match." - Checks out
• "The referee for the match was Andre Marriner (Birmingham)" - Checks out
• "With just over 20 minutes to play, Cardiff were awarded a penalty, which Whittingham scored to level the aggregate score again at 3–3" - Checks out
• The match rules from the report - Source doesn't mention the substitutes
• " Blackpool midfielder Keith Southern was named man of the match" - Checks out
• "The 2009–10 Championship title was won by Newcastle United with 102 points, returning to the Premier League one season after being relegated" - The 102 points isn't mentioned in the source, but it's cited in the table, so it's alright, I guess
• "Cardiff City finished fourth in the Championship, three points behind Nottingham Forest and level on points with Leicester City in fifth" - Checks out

Pretty confident that the article well follows the sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hog Farm: Thanks for the review, I've added comments to the first points. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with Soccerbase and the database then, although I would like to know if I missed something or if there was an error on the match report query from part two. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Woops missed that one. The substitutes is an awkward one as those are pretty basic rules. Other than the match report showing that the teams named seven, I'm struggling to find a source that explicitly states it. Thoughts? Kosack (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Scratch that, managed to find a source that does state it. Kosack (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm thanks very much for your help, I think this is "oven ready" @FAC coordinators: . Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks all in order on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any deal-breakers prose-wise. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Cas. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:08, 28 October 2020 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.