Talk:First Punic War/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments
Lead

"the two main powers of the western Mediterranean" - Should we indicate a time frame for this dominancy, like "ancient western Mediterranean" or throwing in the century?
 * I think that I was taking it as read that a reader would understand "at that time", with the period being given earlier in the sentence. I could add "at the time" to the end, or "in the early 3rd century BC". What do you think?
 * I'd be fine with either in this case, I probably make a lot of unnecessary suggestions in my GA reviews just to throw ideas out there.
 * That's fine. If I don't like your suggestions, I can always say so. Done.

"At the Battle of Cape Ecnomus they were again beaten" - not 100% clear which army "they" is referring to.
 * Clarified.

"but not believing they could hold it, they razed and abandoned it. " - Can this get rephrased so that it is not used twice in quick repetition?
 * Done.

"Next year they lost another 150 ships to a storm" - Possibly "The next year..." would be better.
 * Done.

"The Treaty of Lutatius was signed by which Carthage paid large reparations and Sicily was annexed as a Roman province." - The first part of this sentence reads a bit weird to me, but I'm not entirely sure what's wrong ("was signed by which Carthage" reads funny to me).
 * Split the sentence: "The Treaty of Lutatius was agreed. By its terms"

Sources

"The modern historian Anne Curry considers "Polybius turns out to [be] fairly reliable"." - Is considers the best word here, it makes the tense feel a little weird.
 * Changed to "believes".

Background

"Carthage ... on at least one occasion used their navy to ferry" - Is Carthage and their the correct case matching here? My instinct would be to match Carthage with it (referring to the city) and to use their for Carthaginians. However, I'm not the greatest at grammar, so you may be correct here.
 * No it's not and your instinct is correct. Thanks for catching it.

Armies

"They all carried short thrusting swords: in addition the front rank carried two javelins ..." - I'm not sure that the colon is the best option here.
 * Rejigged the whole sentence. See what you think.

"also employed war elephants; African forest elephants were" - Can you fix the MOS:SEAOFBLUE here?
 * It's not - there is an interposing semi colon. But rephrased anyway.

Sicily

"The Romans had an inadequate supply system, partly because the Carthaginian naval supremacy prevented them from shipped supplies by sea, and were not in any case accustomed to feeding an army as large as 40,000 men" - Something here's not quite right. Maybe add they to make "and they were not in any case"?
 * Done.


 * Hi and thanks for taking this on. I realise that it is a bit of a biggy. Your comments to date all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on headings - We have two sections named Sicily, would it be possible to change one of them?
 * Fixed.

Rome builds a fleet - So quinqueremes means "five-oared", not "five oared ship" or something like that? I'm not familiar with Latin, and you seem to be, so I'll trust that this is correct but I just want to make sure.
 * My Latin is poor, but quin = five; que = of; reme = oar. The "ship" is implicit - what else would have oars? Anyway, it's sourced, so if I'm wrong, it's not my fault.

"A quinquereme carried a crew of 300: 280 oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers;[69] it would also normally carry a complement of 40 marines;[70] if battle was thought to be imminent this would be increased to as many as 120." - This is a lot of clauses in one sentence. Would it make sense to you to break it into two sentences between ref 69 and the next word?
 * Sure. Done.

"Boodes ships attacked" - Should this be "Boodes' ships attacked"?
 * It should!

"In 257 BC there was a typical chance encounter." - This seems like an odd way to introduce a notable battle.
 * Several medium-sized naval clashes were accidental encounters, but I have removed the offending phrase.

Invasion of Africa

You refer to Hanno the Great and Hamilcar mustering the Carthaginian fleet against the Romans. Are you referring to Hamilcar (Drepanum) or Hamilcar Barca? They were both active in this war.
 * Hamilcar (Drepanum), who is already linked. An excuse to link a second time? In my FA Battle of Cape Ecnomus I introduce him as "Hamilcar, the victor of the Battle of Thermae"; I could do the same again. What do you think?
 * I think either of those would be acceptable. Normally this other bluelink would not be acceptable, but I'd say with all of the similar names here, a second bluelink would definitely not be detrimental.  Either way should be fine.
 * Blue linked.

Second paragraph of this section - Unless I missed it, you never give the name of the battle you describe here. That would be helpful information to the reader.
 * Very true. Inserted.
 * Umm ... I don't know if this was intentional or not, but I noticed you inserted the battle's name and then removed it in the next edit. Is there a reason why it wouldn't be mentioned?
 * D'oh! I had two tabs open. I should have got an edit clash warning. Now fixed.

Is the Hamilcar mentioned in the third paragraph the same Hamilcar from earlier? So many similar names in this era
 * I have a recollection of reading that the Carthaginians only had eight male given names. Yes.

Caption from the map in this section
 * You refer to the captured Roman general as Regulus in the caption but refer to the capture of Romulus in the text. Which one is correct?
 * Lol. I'm an idiot. Fixed.


 * Also, the caption is preceded with "alt=", this is probably a markup error.
 * Thank you. Fixed.


 * The Bagradas River is mentioned in the caption, but not in the text description of the Battle of Tunis
 * Standardised. And caption trimmed a little.

Hasdrubal should probably be wikilinked at first mention, since he hasn't been mentioned since the infobox. This is Hasdrubal the Fair, right? (He seems to be the only Hasdrubal listed at Hasdrubal who would be alive at this time frame, although he would be youngish for army command.
 * Yeah, he would be 14. A completely different Hasdrubal, not on the list. I assume because this is the only historical mention of him and there is never going to an article on him. I could red link him, and/or add him to that list as an article free Hasdrubal?
 * If this his only mention in recorded history, probably best not to add to the pseudo-disambiguation list or make a redlink.

Sicily (second section)

You mention the two consuls of 254 BC, but what are these two consuls' names? The consuls for the year of this year would be different than the consuls of the year for the previous years described, unless the Romans decided to carryover these.
 * I deliberately don't name them. The Romans got through some 40 consuls during the war (plus a dictator, who doesn't even get mentioned) and name checking them all would be tedious. So I have only mentioned the more memorable. Obviously, where you draw the line is subjective; but for me these two didn't make the cut. Plus I am trying to balance this - very roughly - with the number of Carthaginians mentioned by name.
 * That's fine with me, there's no point in naming all of the lesser ones if there's so many involved.

"They turned to the maritime offensive," - Should Carthaginians be specified at the start of the sentence (the context is established, but later in the sentence).
 * Done.

Aftermath - I know this is written in British English, but is there a word you could use besides "havered"? As a speaker of American English, I've never seen this word before and had to look it up. See MOS:COMMONALITY.
 * Ah, but "havered" describes it so precisely! And the situation, of course, is rather nuanced to be captured in a word. I have gone with "Carthage attempted to avoid paying in full the foreign troops ... "

The references and images are all good, no signs of COPYVIO and AGF on the print sources.

Overall, a very good and informative article. Aside from the issues with that one caption, most of this is just copyedit that should be quick cleanup. Pinging nominator,. Hog Farm (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Hog Farm for this speedy and effective review. My responses above, including a couple of queries for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * - I've responded to your comments, I think there's only like two or three little things left now before passing. Hog Farm (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I think that that is everything covered. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Passing this one for GA now. Hog Farm (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)