Talk:Battle of New Carthage/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ifly6 (talk · contribs) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * No immediate issues here.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lede is fine. Layout is fine. No objectionable wording. Fiction is irrelevant and lists are fine.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * Bibliography meets GA standards.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * See infra.
 * c. (OR):
 * Will review.
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * No obvious plagiarism. Will review.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Title under discussion but not a matter for GA.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are relevant and captions are informative.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Title under discussion but not a matter for GA.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are relevant and captions are informative.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are relevant and captions are informative.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:

Will start actual line-by-line review soon. Ifly6 (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

RS of two sources

 * (From above, under 2(b).) Pen & Sword is not an academic publisher. Carey does not seem to be an expert on Roman warfare or on the period. Similarly, Bagnall is a soldier. Neither of these are part of the reliable peer reviewed scholarship. Miles is fine, though I think RS would also prefer his academic publications over his Penguin ones. Ifly6 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Addressed at first mention.

RS of two sources (moved)
Pen & Sword is not an academic publisher.
 * "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include ... Books published by respected publishing houses"

Carey does not seem to be an expert on Roman warfare or on the period.
 * He is a professor of history and military studies and the author of Warfare in the Ancient World. Which GAN criteria are you looking at when you make that comment?

Similarly, Bagnall is a soldier.
 * Bagnall retrained as a military historian and was a fellow of Balliol College when he wrote that work.

Neither of these are part of the reliable peer reviewed scholarship.
 * To the contrary, the works of a professor of history and a fellow of Balliol College exemplify the peer review process. Which in any case is not required at any level of Wikipedia.

Miles is fine, though I think RS would also prefer his academic publications over his Penguin ones.
 * The name of the publisher has nothing to do with whether a source is academic or not. Which GAN criteria are you looking at when you make that comment?


 * All of my comments are related to the definition of reliable source, which itself is referenced by GAN. My perspective of Pen and Sword comes largely from how badly its books cover the political culture of the late republic (my main field of focus). Eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sulla#Source_reliability. I'm aware of what Carey wrote. His other publications make it clear that ancient warfare is not his field, which is my meaning. The one review of that book by a specialist in ancient history was lukewarm. Hannibal's last battle received no reviews at all; that seldom augurs well. The one review of Bagnall was negative, especially criticising his "cavalier" treatment of modern scholarship, how he "falls for [modern] fantasies", how his "grasp of the material seems shaky", and how he does very little source criticism. I feel source criticism and engagement with the modern scholarship are necessary in Roman studies to be counted reliable given the many traps the ancient historians leave all over the place; but maybe my interpretation of WP:RS is exceptionally and absurdly strict. Ifly6 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Both of those sources are waaay above WP:RS standard. They are above FAC standard, which is a fair bit higher. I could source to a reputable newspaper or a BBC article and that would meet WP:RS. Stepping away from the letter of RS, I agree that some P&S material is shaky and needs handling with care, or not at all, but any book on ancient military history by Carey sails through RS. That some academics get snotty about a work, or that it is short of "academic" reviews is neither here nor there in RS.

Suggestions
(These are all suggestions and you can implement or ignore discretionarily. If there is anything truly important I will bold it.)

Lede

 * MOS:ERA advises use of non-breaking spaces between years and era dates.
 * This is not required by the GAN criteria.
 * I am aware. As I stated above, these are all suggestsion and you can implement or ignore discretionarily. My focus has always been on political culture, which perhaps may colour my remarks. If you think them perhaps too in-depth for a military history article, certainly make the point. Ifly6 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. Apologies if I came across a little terse. I try to put a response to any reviewer comment, preferably more than just "no" ( :-) ).


 * Statement in lede that Roman presence was all but extinguished seems like an exaggeration and seems inconsistent with the description of a commander, an area, etc below. Perhaps reword to In 211 BC the Romans were defeated at battle of the Upper Baetis, reducing the Roman presence on the peninsula to a small territory in the north-east. I would also omit (modern Spain and Portugal); you say it below anyway and I think readers can be expected to know what Iberia is.
 * Rephrased.
 * And, trust me on this, hardly anyone knows where, or even what, Iberia is.

Background

 * It doesn't appear that Miles 2011 p. 220 supports the claim that Carthage owned much of Iberia in 218 BC. The passage there discusses Hamilcar's conquests c. 235–30 BC of "lower Andalusia, [two river routes]... as well as pushing eastward to the coast line opposite the island of Ibiza". It then talks about changing relations between Barcids and the metropole and then silver coins. Ifly6 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "much of Iberia" is a reasonable WP:SUMMARY and paraphrase of what Miles says - what you quote plus "the occupation of Southern Spain progess[ing]" and mines being brought under control.


 * I would mention the inciting incident of the war also was in Spain, with the ultimatum presented to Carthage over Saguntum.
 * Why? It has almost no relevance to this article and happened ten years earlier.


 * Perhaps mention that the Roman commanders in Iberia were Scipios? As to future-Africanus' qualifications, Zimmerman in Hoyos Companion p 292 and Lowe 2000 make a good point re personal ties [of future-Africanus] to native aristocrats which is worth including.
 * Why? They had been dead for nearly two years and played no role in this battle.


 * Add a comma in When the Celtiberians deserted the Romans between Celtiberians and deserted.
 * I assume that you mean after "deserted", in which case done.
 * Yes, my apologies. Ifly6 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Expand as to what the Romans held, Edwell says only a small strip of coastline north of the Ebro at your citation location. Zimmerman instead says at p 291 Rome's position [was]... thrown back to... 218.
 * "holding on to a small lodgement in north-east Iberia" is a perfectly good paraphrase of "a small strip of coastline north of the Ebro".


 * Neither source connects this defeat, which they leave unnamed, to the Battle of the Upper Baetis; while I might know that is the case, the sources don't so attest.
 * Good point. Deleted. I already have sorting out our article on the battle of the Upper Baetis on my to do list.
 * Good luck with that. There's a lot of work that needs to be done all over the place! Ifly6 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am working through it. 1PW - tick; 3PW - tick; Truceless - tick; 2PW - a good start, but work to do. See User:Gog the Mild/Promoted articles.


 * Consider use of ? I would move the information in the note, regardless, that the commanders were Scipios, into the main text.
 * Changed to efn. Good spot. The information on Scipio's relatives is very marginal, and barely worth including as a footnote.


 * Scipio commanded a total of 31,000 men: 28,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry Is this a modern estimate or an ancient one? Who made it?
 * As with all information in this article, it is what is what is given in the source to which it is cited.
 * I made this comment because the credibility of ancient troop counts is low (eg Herodotus' 2.5 million man invasion). I would prefer troop estimates which are validated against modern scholarship. Ifly6 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You should see what I write when I include a "Primary sources" section. Eg Zama is currently at FAC: "the classicist Adrian Goldsworthy says Livy's "reliability is often suspect";[14] and the historian Philip Sabin refers to Livy's "military ignorance".[15] Dexter Hoyos describes Livy's account of Zama as "bizarrely at odds with Polybius’ which he seems not to understand fully"." and " Hoyos accuses Appian of bizarre invention in his account of Zama; Michael Taylor states that it is "idiosyncratic"." You should read it.
 * The article cites the information to Lazenby, Bagnall (don't wince) and Goldsworthy. They all agree. Yes, I could OR that they lifted that from Polybius, but so what. It's not my fault if a consensus of modern scholars agree with him. And like everything in Wikipedia where there is a scholarly consensus, we just state it in Wikipedia's voice and move on.


 * The reasons for Scipio's irregular appointment are worth including a sentence on. I would also mention he was privatus and had never held an imperium-endowed magistracy. He was the first person so appointed. This is big for reasons beyond youth.
 * Wikipedia is usually written in summary style and the GAN criteria suggest that the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail."


 * This division of Carthaginian forces in Iberia, to the extent that it was difficult for them to mutually support each other, ... perhaps This division of Carthaginian forces made it difficult for them to support each other. with some splits in the run-on sentence.
 * Neat. Done.


 * Goldsworthy Fall p 247 directly connects tribal loyalty to perceptions of victory. I would do the same.
 * Actually he doesn't. He writes of the side perceived as being "the stronger". Even then he is nuanced, "above all else", "at least locally".
 * We can disagree about the level of certainty Goldsworthy (or I) express. The reason why I brought it up is because I'd prefer to see a direct connection between the optics of rapid victory and Scipio's strategic position contextualised to Hispania. Something to that effect would add much. Ifly6 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think I know what you mean. Something like "The defeats of 211 BC had badly damaged Rome's standing with the Iberian tribes. A rapid Roman victory would stiffen the morale of those tribes which had remained loyal to Rome and encourage others to come over." Yes?
 * Something of that sort, pretty much, though I would word it more analytically – "Why does victory here matter for Spanish tribes?" being the first question – and deduce it out though. Ifly6 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If only Wikipedia allowed rhetorical questions and OR deductions. Let me see what I can source.
 * More words than I am really comfortable adding on a side issue, but done.


 * Such a tactic could have led to an inconclusive campaign, at the end of which the Romans would have had to retreat... suggest Lack of decision would have forced a Roman withdrawal after an inconclusive campaign, which would have negatively affected the reliability of Rome's Iberian allies.
 * I prefer the current wording, which preserves the chronological sequence.
 * I am possibly over careful in this respect, but whenever I break chronological order, reviewers complain.

Prelude

 * WP:CAPFRAG (The text of captions should not be specially formatted (with italics, for example), except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text) indicates that your image captions should not be centred. Re the image, consider citing
 * I disagree that CAPFRAG coovers this. Note, for example, that all cations in infoboxes default to centred captions. In any event, this is not required by the GAN criteria.


 * Comma between Iberia and Scipio? When he arrived in Iberia Scipio...
 * Nope. I don't use that type of commaisation.


 * Zimmermann (2015) p. 292 gives a source, namely that he made this comment in a later letter to Philip V; I think Briscoe 1989 discusses how this might be a post hoc rationalisation; that might be worth including for source criticism.
 * I don't think it would be.
 * You don't think that the possibility that Scipio's later-stated reasons are actually a post hoc rationalisation is relevant? Discussions of whether Falkenhayn did the same at Verdun have spawned an entire literature (though of course when you lose people care more). I would at least mention the possibility. Ifly6 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally imagine that they are. Like just about every other military commander ever. So what? How is that relevant to the article.


 * I would only mention the lagoon and not the tides, inasmuch as your narrative later gives a (much more compelling) reconstruction re sluice gates. Scipio also reputedly learned details of how fordable the lagoon to the north was, in particular the effect of the tides and, possibly, the wind on it.
 * Of the two main ancient sources, one only mentions the tides. Of the modern sources, several only mention either the tides or the wind or both. While I also find Lowe's argument persuasive, it is not for me to cherry pick sources I like, but give a representative picture of what the modern RSs are saying.
 * In my view, although the reliable sources are scant on this matter because ancient battle reconstruction is not in vogue, the trend seems strongly against accepting the tides (inasmuch as they are physically and mathematically impossible). The most common given explanation is the wind, per p 460 n 8 here: Note though that Richardson dismisses the received story of how NC was captured entirely – I agree with him here, handwavery about the wind also is not credible – and thinks it is a myth created to make SA look badass. But in this matter I may be more critical than most; perhaps say instead that Polyb and Appian assert tides and that Livy asserts wind. Ifly6 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I would mention the presence of the Spanish hostages, per Goldsworthy 2003 (In the name of Rome) p. 58.
 * They get mentioned later.


 * The sources given don't seem to support your phraseology that He [Scipio] was aware [of insert details here]. I would rephrase in terms of [insert details] simply being the case.
 * I think it's a reasonable paraphrase, but I take your point. So I rephrased.


 * The person in command with the remaining troops was probably Marcus Junius Silanus, per MRR 1.287.
 * Yes, he was.


 * second in command second-in-command. I would also mention his rank – praefectus classis – per MRR 1.288.
 * Wiktionary gives the unhyphenated version as an acceptable alternate spelling. As this is the English language Wikipedia I try to avoid foreign words as much as I can. "Second in command" should be fine for most readers.


 * The estimate for troops brought and left in Goldsworthy 2003 (In the name of Rome) comes from Polyb. 10.9.4–7 and Liv. 26.42.1, per p. 449 n. 11. I would make it clear that is the source of the numbers and, if possible, replace them with modern estimates.
 * That's not how Wikipedia works.
 * Writing something like Goldsworthy 2004, p. ##, 449 n. 11, citing Polyb. 10.9.4–7 and Liv. 26.42.1 is definitely how Wikipedia works. It is merely the full citation for where Goldsworthy found those numbers. I recommended a further dive into troop assessments because I don't believe the ancient sources' counts (exaggerated for commanders' benefit at the start; see eg Val Max 2.8.1 noting legislation by Cato requiring commanders to swear to the accuracy of their kill counts when returning to the city), as I felt it would improve the article. Ifly6 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Really. That is not how Wikipedia works with its citations. Or even how history works with its citations. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. If there is a scholarly consensus, we repeat it and move on.


 * Goldsworthy 2003 (In the name of Rome) pp. 59–60 seems to contradict Lazenby re when Scipio revealed their objective to his senior staff: It is not known at what point Scipio revealed their objective to his senior officers.
 * I don't see that. They both agree that they didn't know the destination when they left Terraco, and they probably realised they were heading for Cartagena when they camped outside. I assume that both would agree that the information was imparted at some point between these two events.

Battle
Nb I've also made a few grammar corrections here and there.


 * Goldsworthy 2004 p. 61 seems like it should be pp. 60–61.
 * I don't see it. Which part of the article text is covered by page 60?


 * When you refer to Lowe 2000 pp 43–44's citations of Polybius and Livy, I would encourage parallel citation to those sources:
 * That's your choice. Wikipedia is not here for serious historians. It is a generalist tertiary source. Where necessary I do discuss the primary sources - sample the articles I have improved from the top three sections of User:Gog the Mild/Promoted articles to see examples. If you want a discussion of the primary sources, read the more serious secondary sources, not Wikipedia. In passing, I have a perfectly good grasp of the primary sources thanks; if they are not mentioned anywhere that you think they should could your default assumption be that I have done that deliberately? Thanks.
 * Serious historians value Wikipedia for what it is - a generalist tertiary source - not as an alternative to an academic journal.
 * Again, that is not what Wikipedia is here to do. If someone's interest is piqued, the secondary sources are there for them to consult. They in turn contain citations referencing the primary sources. That is how Wikipedia works. If you disagree, could we debate it elsewhere, or could you ask for a third opinion?
 * These are third opinions. I made none of the comments in . As to the discussion thread I linked, I could conceive of three positions: (1) primary sources okay, (2) primary sources but only when cited by a secondary source, and (3) secondary sources only. I don't think anyone there advocated for (3), which is what I think you're advocating for; I at the time advocated for (2) and against primary source primacy, which is a very strange Wikipedian predilection. Ifly6 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are putting words in my mouth. I have not advocated anything. I have stated what I understand to be how Wikipedia works, without suggesting whether this is how I would prefer it to work. It is certainly possible to have various views on this, I may have one myself - I haven't said. But WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RSPRIMARY seem pretty unambiguous, and even more so in how they are implemented in practice on Wikipedia.
 * Again, that is not what Wikipedia is here to do. If someone's interest is piqued, the secondary sources are there for them to consult. They in turn contain citations referencing the primary sources. That is how Wikipedia works. If you disagree, could we debate it elsewhere, or could you ask for a third opinion?
 * These are third opinions. I made none of the comments in . As to the discussion thread I linked, I could conceive of three positions: (1) primary sources okay, (2) primary sources but only when cited by a secondary source, and (3) secondary sources only. I don't think anyone there advocated for (3), which is what I think you're advocating for; I at the time advocated for (2) and against primary source primacy, which is a very strange Wikipedian predilection. Ifly6 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are putting words in my mouth. I have not advocated anything. I have stated what I understand to be how Wikipedia works, without suggesting whether this is how I would prefer it to work. It is certainly possible to have various views on this, I may have one myself - I haven't said. But WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RSPRIMARY seem pretty unambiguous, and even more so in how they are implemented in practice on Wikipedia.


 * See this WP:CGR archived discussion. Ifly6 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Lowe 2000 discusses Polyb in terms of near-contemporary and usually reliable Greek historian Polybius at 43–44. Perhaps reword simply to Polyb says XYZ, Livy says ABC, etc.
 * This is approaching WP:BLUE, but now cited.


 * It seems non-chronological to put to the sack before the massacres; Goldsworthy In the name... p. 65 discusses the Romans first massacring everyone they encountered then at a signal sacking the city in an organised manner. This ordered narrative of the massacres then the sack also is in the (very nice) book by Gabriel Baker, Spare no one (2021), pp. 118–19 (BMCR; the book largely relates to the culture of Roman atrocities).
 * I think that we are disagreeing as to the definition of "sack". See Goldsworthy "Carthage" page 275, "Rome" page 65, or Lazenby page 139 - they all directly reference Polybius, which I thought you'd like - where they explicitly include "slaughter" as part of "sack".
 * As the massacre is a part of the sack, the sack needs mentioning first.


 * What terms he was granted is not known: I don't see anything in Goldsworthy In the name... p. 65 talking about the lack of knowledge about the specific terms under which Mago surrendered.
 * I think it is clear from context, but as it is a trivial point I have deleted it.


 * 10,000 Carthaginians → 10,000 men or inhabitants (?), per Goldsworthy Fall p. 276: "Of the 10,000 men captured, the citizens were released, the non-citizen[s]... were made public slaves..."
 * "men" specified.

Aftermath

 * The unexpected blow caused the Carthaginian generals to fall back on the defensive, continuing to disagree among themselves; although in total they far outnumbered the Romans, they made no attempt to combine their forces. Perhaps reword to The unexpected blow caused the Carthaginian generals to fall back on the defensive; continuing to disagree among themselves, they made no attempt to combine their forces even though in total they far outnumbered the Romans.
 * Done.


 * Gades, defected to the Romans. Miles 2013 says that Gades surrendered, as does Briscoe in CAH2 p 60. Both cite Livy 28.36–37, which in translation also uses the word "surrendered" (in original deduntur). I certainly can see how that in context that could be a defection; but it doesn't seem anyone characterises it that specific way.
 * It seems a perfectly good paraphrase to me.
 * The reason why I brought it up is that "defection" to me implies a sense of malice or dishonesty; while surrender implies nothing of the sort. Eg a caught spy "defects" to the enemy while an honourable commander "surrenders" to the enemy after a hard-fought battle. Ifly6 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Defect: To abandon or turn against; to cease or change one's loyalty, especially from a military organisation or political party." No mention of malice, dishonesty nor dishonour.
 * The second definition is "To desert one's army, to flee from combat", which is probably where you get the negative connotations from. But in this case a city clearly cannot flee nor be a part of an army, so I assumed that a reader would gather that the first type of defect was intended.

References etc

 * I would that Goldsworthy In the name of Rome was first published in 2003. Your date is correct, however, because it is regardless that edition's publication date.
 * Done.


 * Lazenby Hannibal's war (noted currently as 1998), according to WorldCat, was first published in 1978.
 * 1998 is a new edition, with a new preface, so the 1998, on its own, is correct.
 * I know. As with above, I'm recommending something like . Ifly6 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's only done for reprints of the same edition. As this is a new edition the "original" publication date is 1998. Ok, checking the template guidance, let me try something.

Further comments
Hi and thanks for that. Your comments to date all addressed and your next instalment awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking time to respond. I've had a bit of a time to respond to your comments off-the-cuff. I'll probably continue with further remarks later today. I've given some responses to your responses, but I want to stress here that they are not GA criteria-related and that they are my attempts to push for what I think would be improvements. Ifly6 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I do want to say very well done. The article is in almost infinitely better shape than it was when I edited it (very shortly) a mere five days ago. Wikipedia has no deadlines but it's always nice to see fast and competent work. Ifly6 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate that. I have, I think, a good grasp of the HQ RSs and have improved numerous PW articles over the past few years, so once I have got to grips with a topic it doesn't take long for me to generate something. The down side of this of course is that sometimes the detail is a bit rough and ready.
 * And I seem to have ridden rough shod over a couple of your changes - apologies for that. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * We seem to be getting well, well off topic from a GAN review of this article. I would be grateful if you could indicate which comments you feel are essential for GA. Or, better, copy them to a separate section. I could then address them and you could pass or fail the nomination. We could then continue discussion of other potential improvements on the article's talk page, and the more general discussion of what Wikipedia exists to do elsewhere. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They're the ones in bold above. I'm currently at work but will take a look at it tonight. Ifly6 (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the changes made and the matters bolded, I have no further comments and pass. Again, well done. Ifly6 (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)