Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 23:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure can, I've cleared tomorrow afternoon and wednesday to complete my GA reviews that are open. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• no note on primary sourcing? :(
• " who was one of several Carthaginian Hannos known as "the great"," Does this add anything? I think it's possibly extraneous detail

I agree. But in other reviews - eg the FAC on the Mercenary War - reviewers have been pushy about wanting this specific detail in. Go figure. Deleted.

• "While the war with Rome was being played out," maybe just "During the First Punic War" or similar? I know it's less nice-sounding, but it eliminates any potential for confusion (though, for once, I do follow perfectly)

I am a bit baffled as to what confusion may arise, but changed. ("for once"!! The cheek!)

'For once' was referring to the fact that I tend to get much more confused when reading something along the lines of what I commented on than the average person -- certainly not about your writing! :P

• "newly conquered territory" is there any map or other way you can clarify what the newly conquered territory was (the reader will likely have no idea what the old territory was)

Nope. Apart from the one mention, we have little idea of the extent of Carthaginian "conquests" at any given time, how these changed, or what the relationship with these various territories was.

• "previously due from towns and cities was doubled" doubled for all towns/cities, or just the newly conquered ones?

Added "all".

• "The Carthaginian Senate ordered the commander of its forces on Sicily, Hamilcar Barca, to negotiate a peace treaty; he delegated this to his deputy Gisco. The Treaty of Lutatius was signed and brought the First Punic War to its end" I think this may come a bit premature in this article, purely chronologically... you continue to talk about what happened in the war for several sentences after

Reordered to be more chronological. Does it flow better now?

yup

• "The evacuation of the Carthaginian army of 20,000 men from Sicily was left in the hands of Gisco" before or after the treaty was signed?

Better now?

I sure think so

• "combine for purposes of their own" is a little vague/ Is there a way to specify?

I suspect that Gisco, like most senior officers, was convinced that soldiers should always be kept busy with something for fear that they will otherwise get up to unspecified mischief. The soource is equally vague, so I have taken it out.

• "dissenters were stoned to death" dissenters to the riot or the rioters themselves?

Changed to "men who stayed loyal to Carthage were stoned to death".

• " if he were recaptured" by the Romans or the Carthaginians?

Umm. I think this is clear. The people whom it is specified in the same sentence that he had escaped from.

• "were declared generals" maybe "of the [revolting soldiers]" or smth similar?

Rephrased.

• link to Serge Lancel?

Done.

• " these foreigners were from North Africa" of which foreigners? The ones seconded, the regular troops, or both?

See the previous (and first) mention of foreigners in the opening words of the paragraph "Carthaginian armies were nearly always composed of foreigners".

• " as archaeological investigations not found any signs of trenches or ramparts" missing word?

Oops. Added.

• " or, possibly, later the same day" don't think 'possibly' is needed here, you already say 'either'

I think it is. The source is saying that the counter-attack was probably the next day, but might, just possibly, have been later the same day as Hanno's attack. I could change it to "most likely the day after the Carthaginians stormed their camp or, possibly, later the same day" if you think that is clearer.

Oh, that works-- I thought there were contradictions in the sourcing

Changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really really great work, as always, minor, subjective comments. Some more to come perhaps on the morrow. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eddie891. Your comments all responded to. A couple with explanations or queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Images = good
• copyvio = no
• sources = reliable
• spotcheck = goodish
• Gog the Mild from my rather limited check, everything lines up except cite #33 seems to only talk about the Second Punic War, so how can it cite the composition of an army in the Mercenary War? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: You have a case there, so while I could debate it, I have swapped in the work that Sabin refers to in his footnote. (I should perhaps have done this in the first place, but he takes over 5 pages to say "We dunno".) If you would like me to email you anything, or just quote the bits I am relying on, feel free to ask. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you quoted its somewhere. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, "Whether Carthaginian elephants ever [emphasis added] used turrets in pitched battle is still uncertain ... yet the notion that they [turrets] were used in siege warfare ... or else in parades or ceremonial displays appears to be plausible enough." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, This now meets the GA criteria. Passing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]