Talk:Third Punic War/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 21:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No DABs
 * Spell out that the aerial photo of modern Carthage is USAAF wartime aerial reconnaissance photo.
 * Done.


 * File:Hannibal Slodtz Louvre MR2093.png The licensing of this seems a bit confused. While not up on copyright for statues, I'm not sure that PD-1923 is appropriate for the US license. And doesn't France not have freedom of panorama, which I believe that this would need.
 * To not really answer, looked at it at Featured article candidates/Battle of Cape Ecnomus/archive1 and was happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify: France does not have freedom of panorama, which is what prompted me to ask at that review to have tags added for the original work. Gog, it might be clearer to differentiate which license applies to what? See for example File:1943D_Mercury_Dime_reverse.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I repeatedly fail to think of doing that. I am not sure why I have a mental blind spot there. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel 66 I have replaced the inappropriate licence with a 'PD because' "Article L122-5 of the French Code of Intellectual Property provides for a limited freedom of panorama for works of architecture and sculpture. The code authorizes "reproductions and representations of works of architecture and sculpture, placed permanently in public places (voie publique), and created by natural persons, with the exception of any usage of a commercial character", and as a sculpture placed permanently in a public place this work falls within the scope of the Code." Gog the Mild (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Er, no, we can't use that - it's a non-commercial limitation which is considered non-free for our purposes. Given the stated age of the statue you're better off with a PD expiration template of some kind. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am doubtless being slow here, but if there is no freedom of panorama, how can the age of the work matter? (I didn't realise that Wikipedia was commercial - learn something every day.) Any response will be delayed as I am off to bed. Cheers Gog the Mild (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia itself is not commercial, we just don't accept works with non-commercial limits as being free.
 * The point of freedom of panorama is, in places where these laws exist, you can take photos of 3D works in public spaces without needing to care about what the licensing of the work is - so long as you license your photo freely, we can use it, even if the statue you're photographing is copyrighted. In locations without freedom of panorama, we can still take and use images of 3D works, but only if they are freely licensed or not under copyright. Because France does not have full freedom of panorama, then, the age of the work matters because if the copyright's expired then we can use it, and if it hasn't then we can't (unless you want to try a fair-use claim). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * right! I have reinstated the Old template that objected to; although it is now clearer that it only applies to the original work.
 * Non-commercial restrictions: I must have read that at some time, but obviously it went straight out of my head. Thanks for explaining it; hopefully it will stick.
 * Sturm, does this assuage your concerns? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sturm, does this assuage your concerns? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sturm, does this assuage your concerns? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes.
 * I'd suggest that the map of Carthage be moved into the infobox.
 * Done.


 * Can you elaborate on the captions in the gallery?
 * No. I inherited them and unusually (I normally dislike pretty pictures for the sake of them) thought that they added something for the reader. I have deleted the captions as, on reflection, they are a bit stupidly repetitive, but other that being modern images of the ruins of Carthage there is no information. I could remove them?


 * All other images are appropriately licensed.
 * Link Tunisia in the lede and the infobox
 * Done, although countries are the first example of what should not be linked at WP:OL.
 * From personal experience, I think that the MOS vastly overestimates the geographic literacy of the average reader. Especially for smaller countries.


 * Remove decisive from the infobox as per MilMOS.
 * Done.


 * Is there an article on Hasdrual's lost battle? If so, link it, if not create a red link.
 * Done.
 * Move the link to the lede.
 * Done.


 * Add being elected consul to getting command in Africa; that's a pretty big deal on its own
 * Done.
 * Move to the lede. Becoming consul in the main body was already well spelled out.
 * Done.


 * Romans surprise there's a repeated issue with possessive apostrophes herein. Some are missing all together and others are singular when I believe all should be plural
 * Standardised. (As plural.)


 * More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Many thanks . Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Great convoys Perhaps "Large convoys"?
 * Done. (I suspect that that was me rather desperately paraphrasing.)


 * Link the 4th Legion
 * Done, although it is a red link; none of the five current articles on Fourth Legions relate to this one.


 * The Romans would have been in difficulty This reads oddly to my eye. Is this a BritEng thing?
 * Possibly. (I hadn't thought so.) Changed to "The Romans may have taken heavy losses".


 * Censorinus's camp was badly situated and by early summer was so pestiferous that it was moved to a healthier location. This, however, was not as defensible, and the Carthaginians inflicted losses on the Roman fleet with fireships. How are these two things related?
 * Sorry Sturm, which two things? Guessing, do you mean the link between moving from a readily defensible but pestiferous site to a healthier but less defensible one, which lack of defensibility enabled it to be successfully attacked with fireships?
 * I don't think that most readers would know that the Roman ships were beached for the night so might wonder why ships at sea would be more vulnerable if a shore-based temporary fortification was moved.
 * But how ignorant do they need to be to not realise that a large group of ships, whether tied up at quays, anchored offshore or beached would make a tempting mass target.
 * Anyway, spelt out a little. (I have already established that "Manius Manilius commanding the army and Lucius Censorius the fleet.")


 * averted by Scipio's prompt action which was what?
 * Gah! Changed to "was again averted by Scipio taking prompt action".
 * What did he do?
 * Elaborated.


 * formed groups were always ready formed groups of what? Possibly rephrase to clarify
 * Very good question. Clarified. (But not rephrased. See what you think.)
 * It works


 * Scipio confused them with a strategem. You're teasing me here!
 * Yep. You really want to know? Elaborated. (Oldest trick in the book. So stereotypical that I am not sure I believe it, but it is solidly sourced.)


 * advanced into an untenable position, and when they attempted to withdraw were attacked by the Carthaginians, Why untenable? Kinda awkward, possibly needs another "they" and/or more commas to set off subordinate clauses.
 * The untenability elaborated. I know that Americans like to scatter commas generously compared to us Brits, but I really don't see where another could be squeezed in here. So I have broken the sentence, which allows the introduction of an additional "they". That work?
 * A'yup


 * The Roman column was repeatedly attacked as it retreated to its camp; How was it a humiliation?
 * Struggled to explain succinctly, so have rephrased.


 * Better planned needs a hyphen
 * Done.


 * Fix the link to Aspis
 * Done.


 * A Numidian chief came over to the Carthaginians with 800 cavalry. Why? This comes out of nowhere.
 * Cus the Carthaginians were on a roll. I assume that it is because of their perception that the Carthaginians were winning the war. But none of the sources explicitly say this; they list the Carthaginian successes and then just state that 800 Numidians turned their coats. Ie, they do what I have done. I don't want to OR, so I could remove the sentence; after all, 800 men is barely here nor there.
 * Best to remove it entirely, I think.
 * Done.


 * Carthage allied with Andriscus, a pretender to the Macedonian throne, who invaded Roman Macedonia, defeated a Roman army, had himself crowned King Philip VI, and sparked the Fourth Macedonian War. Pretty dense sentence, might be worthwhile to unpack a little. More later.
 * Sentence split. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Be sure to go through my bullets thoroughly; there are still things not addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you going all southern on me? Gog the Mild


 * Is "enrol" BritEng or a typo? Enquiring minds wish to know ;-)
 * enrol!


 * Once the channel was complete this sailed out, taking the Romans by surprise. This seems out of sequence and should be after the sentence discussing training the new fleet. And why "this"? What does it refer to, the fleet?
 * Sequence - the point is that, for whatever reason (and I would be happy to OR, but the sources say not; perhaps at the time it was considered obvious) the Carthaginians did their training and trimming after exiting the harbour for the open sea. (I actually have an idea of what they were up to, but it is pure OR) So the sequence is correct. I could elaborate a little around this if you think the current wording would confuse those who are not naval aficionados.


 * necessary to trim the What does "trim" mean here?
 * Whatever the source meant; but from context I assume adjustment of ballast, deck gear, rigging etc. (Wiktionary 4: "To modify the angle relative to the water by shifting cargo or ballast; to adjust for sailing; to assume, or cause to assume a certain position, or trim, in the water." Wiktionary 5: "To modify the angle (of the sails) relative to the wind, especially to set them at the most advantageous angle." Wiktionary 7: "to put in due order for any purpose; to make right, neat, or pleasing; to adjust.")


 * A few days were necessary to trim the new-built ships and to train the new crews who had not been to sea for over two years and were out of the habit of operating together, and by the time the Carthaginians felt ready to give battle the Romans had concentrated their own naval forces. Big sentence
 * True. Split.


 * link sea wall, Apollo, Eshmoun
 * D'oh! Done.


 * Put Purcell into title case
 * Done.

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Phew! I left you a fair bit to do there. Many thanks. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)