Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Adys/archive1

Battle of Adys

 * Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nine years into the First Punic War and the Romans carried the war to the Carthaginians by invading Africa. They established a foothold which the Roman commander Regulus was left to hold over the winter. He pushed inland and was confronted by the Carthaginians. He defeated their incompetently-generalled army at Adys. He then marched to within sight of the city of Carthage and the despairing Carthaginians sued for peace. "Wait!" you cry - the First Punic War lasted another fourteen years. Indeed, read the article to find out what happened.

This is the last of the four land conflicts from the war I will be submitting for FAC; I believe that it is there or thereabouts but would welcome all suggestions for improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood
Hi Therapyisgood, does your labelling your comments "resolved" imply that you support the nomination? Or are there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
All images free + adequately sourced, only one comment: caption says "showing two Roman foot-soldiers from the second century BC", photo description says the relief is from the second century BC. buidhe 03:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always for this. Do you have anything currently on the go where I could QPQ? I am afraid that I am missing your point re "2nd C BC", could you elaborate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The caption is ambiguous as to being created in the second century or depicting second century soldiers; the image description only supports the former. (I should have been more clear). I expect to be nominating another FAC soon and will let you know when that happens—many thanks for the offer. buidhe 01:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was too close to the language to see it. Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84

 * Pending. Airborne84 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A very nice article. Well done! My comments are minor points, noted below, and shouldn't take long to address.
 * In Primary sources, the lead-in to this quote is a bit off: The modern historian Andrew Curry considers '"Polybius turns out to [be] fairly reliable". Maybe instead The modern historian Andrew Curry sees Polybius as "fairly reliable” or something similar?
 * Tweaked.


 * "The immediate cause of the war was control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina)." A stickler would argue that "control" itself can't cause a war. Perhaps desire for control? Disagreement over control?
 * Tweaked.


 * The temporal flow of the background jumps around a bit and may be distracting to the average reader. E.g., it starts in 264 BC and goes to 256, 260, and then 256 again. One possible way to mitigate that would be to adjust the wording at the end of the first paragraph to change “By 256 BC the war had grown into a struggle” to “Eventually the war had grown into a struggle”. Less precise, but the temporal flow of the dates is then linear through the section and you can keep the first paragraph as a summary of the war. There are other ways to handle this, of course. Just a suggestion.
 * You are quite right. The first 256 BC should read 260; now changed.


 * "Regulus chose to take his relatively small force and strike inland." Recommend making this the start of a new paragraph. It's both a new idea and seems as if it would be more impactful for the reader. Not a show-stopper though.
 * Done.


 * "Traditionally the Romans would raise two legions, each of 4,200 infantry and 300 cavalry." In what context? For an Army? Overall?
 * I am not sure that I understand the comment. It is the second sentence of the section "Armies", does that not provide the context? In terms of numbers of legions, the Romans traditionally raised two, like it says. What am I missing?
 * What I was thinking is that a reader might enter the section noting the plural "Armies" title, start with the Roman paragraph (not yet seeing the Carthage paragraph below), and think that the Roman army might have had, like the US Army in WWII, for example, multiple armies within the larger army. The reader will eventually figure it out, but perhaps with some pauses. I wonder if adding "in their force" at the end of the sentence or something similar would prevent that and enable a smoother reading?
 * Ah. I have changed it to "Traditionally, each year the Romans would raise two legions, each of ..." Does that address the issue? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It does indeed!


 * "Carthaginian male citizens served in their army only if there was a direct threat to the city." The city of Carthage? The closest large city within the Carthaginian Empire? The question is whether “Carthaginian” here means from Carthage or from the broader Carthaginian Empire. I'd defer to your knowledge on this.
 * It means Carthaginian citizens, who, like Roman citizens at the time, were (predominately) inhabitants of the eponymous cities. I have inserted "who were largely inhabitants of the city of Carthage" to clarify.


 * Are there any map images of the battle? There's text description of the split Roman armies attacking the Carthaginian on the hillside, etc., which could be supplemented by a close-up map image if there was one available. To be clear, it's not a show-stopper on my part because it's not an overly complex battle, so not that hard for the average reader to visualize with text. Just checking.
 * Sadly not. I know of no map in any source. Which hill it was no one has even guessed at. It would, I agree, be nice to include a battle map (eg, as with Battle of Ecnomus or Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)) but it would be pure OR.


 * Again, nice work on this one. Airborne84 (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Airborne84, much appreciated. Your points above all addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5

 * jointly commanded by Bostar, Hamilcar and Hasdrubal Why isn't Bostar red-linked?
 * Cos this is his one and only appearance in history and I don't see that there will ever be enough information on him to warrant creating an article. (Hasdrubal pops up again and I have him on my "Create an article" list.)


 * is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC) Circa template is needed to the second circa.
 * Ah ha! good spot. Done.


 * a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage You really like Rome so much it should be linked? :)
 * I must have done it once by accident and then cut and pasted. De-linked.


 * but he is known for his The Histories Odd the sentence.
 * Done.


 * Polybius' --> "Polybius's"
 * Done.


 * available warships, 350, under Hanno --> "available warships, 350, under Hanno II the Great" first mention.
 * No. I prefer to go with the sources and describe him as just "Hanno". Not one refers to him as 'Hanno the Great' and "Hanno II the Great" sounds like a king.
 * I disagree, that'd be MOS:EGG. The redirect of the link goes to the Hanno II the Great's section but the reader wouldn't know that and believe it goes to the Hanno the Great (which is kinda true). When they click on it they would get the surprise section instead of the lead. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And I disagree. A reader clicks on Hanno and ends in a section about Hanno II the Great. What is EGGy about that? (Why wouldn't they know that? All they have to do is look at their screen.) If you are arguing against links to sections, then I am not aware of a policy disallowing it, and it is quite common in FAs, as I am sure you are aware.
 * I'm not saying that. We're working for a Wikipedia page on the highest level an article could get here in Wikipedia. I've recently read this WP:EASTEREGG which told me "Keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Wikipedia is not an Advent calendar. Also remember there are people who print the articles." and this "In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly:" and it got my attention. There are people who print our articles into a printed version and if someone prints this article then they wouldn't know who Hanno was and they wouldn't know it was meant to be Hanno II the Great. You're telling me to click on the link well I wouldn't mind clicking on the normally-linked word in a printed book. I don't think it would work; let me know if you clicked on a word in one of your printed books and actually works. ;)
 * This link is not a WP:EGG. There is no requirement for a reader to open it in order to understand perfectly what is happening in the article. If they wish to obtain some further information on Hanno, not relevant to this article, then they have the option of clicking on the link, in which case they get exactly what they expect - no surprise - more information on Hanno; including the all but irrelevant detail that he was the second Carthaginian in their history called Hanno to be known as "the Great".
 * I have an idea, why don't we like (PM has asked) adding a footnote which describes that he was also known as "Hanno II the Great"?
 * Sounds reasonable. Would you be happy with "He was known as Hanno the Great, the second (of three) Carthaginians named Hanno to be awarded that sobriquet"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's say without my opinion and in my general perspectives; yes that looks okay. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * generals named Hasdrubal and Bostar Red-link Bostar.
 * See above.


 * Most male Roman citizens were eligible Wait for a second this just came up but does that mean they used child soldiers or was this after their age of majority? Same for Carthage
 * Once they became "citizens". Same as today, there was an age of majority for citizenship. This is so universal that I don't feel that it needs to be specified. Ie "citizen" is synonymous with 'adult'.
 * Yes but, their age of majority was totally different. I'm not an expert on this topic but an adult could be different than the adult these days. An adult at the time could be maybe bellowing 16 or even bellow 13 who knows? These days that'd be a child soldier. I think a reader could get confused with a modern 18-year-old adult, like the UN that specific standardised. In my eyes, there's a difference between an ancient era adult/citizen and a modern one. For the Romans this could be 14 (which is by the UN a child soldier). Of course, I am not sure when the Romans recruited children.
 * I could change "citizens" to 'adults', but I really don't want to. It would be OR. The sources just say "citizens". By our standard many of them would be "children", but so what? Once we start this, there is no end; eg should I explicitly state that slaves could not be, nor become, citizens? More OR, and I don't see that it will improve the article for a reader. Most readers will understand that one becomes a citizen on reaching the local age of majority and that this varies in space and time. Eg, right now the Saudi age of majority varies because it is based on physical signs of puberty (bulugh), with age 15 as the upper limit; in Indonesia or Myanmar it is 15; in Japan or Thailand it is 20; 21 in Gabon or Samoaconsider 15 year olds to be adults, while others 21ear olds to be children. Just because 18 is the age of majority in the EU does't mean that it is that it is universal, even today.
 * Was I talking about the EU's age of majority? I'm sorry if you thought I mean that. I meant the UN's age of majority which is based on the children's rights of the UN which is signed by every country except you guessed it, the US. It indeed sounds reasonable to expect that from a reader and yes that would be OR if we change it. But how about we look at this sentence "Despite this, several Roman legionaries were known to have enlisted aged 14 in the Imperial Roman army, such as Quintus Postunius Solus who completed 21 years of service in Legio XX Valeria Victrix, and Caecilius Donatus who served 26 years in the Legio XX and died shortly before his honorable discharge.[11]" in the "History of children in the military" article with as source the "Roman Legionary AD 69–161". It wouldn't surprise me that the Old Republic would also use child soldiers like in this example. Were they citizens? Yes, they were. Were they child soldiers? Yes, they were. Did they violate the UN's don't recruit under 15-year-olds children policy? Yes, they did. If "citizens" really is synonymous with "adults" then we now know when they were adults. I still would add a note that they used child soldiers because "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" means boys were included. If there is, of course, a source. In my view if they really used boys in the army then it should be part of the section where it describes the Romans' armies and those boys probably participated in the war.
 * I suspect that we are getting well away from the main point. One could add further explanations to every sentence of the article, but personally I feel that as it stands, including on the question of the age of maturity of Roman citizens, "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Even if I weren't I am unaware of a source covering this, although there probably is one. It would need to relate to this period - your quote above is interesting, but the "Imperial" means that it relates to at least 200, and probably 300, years after this battle.
 * PS Have you noticed who created History of children in the military?
 * I haven't found any other source of child soldiers in the Roman army. Maybe in the future someone would publish one. And not me at least. ;)


 * Both Spain and Gaul provided small numbers --> "Both Hispania and Gaul provided small numbers" Would be strange if you use both Spain and France here.
 * Link Balearic Islands.
 * Bleh! Done.


 * although Tipps describes Tipps who?
 * Described.


 * Modern historians suggest the Carthaginians suffered few or no losses Like whom?
 * Like the three cited at the end of the sentence. I have used the phrase "modern historians" to describe a scholarly consensus twice before in this article (and in numerous other articles) without it being an issue.


 * no losses to their cavalry and elephants.[63][62][65] Re-order the citations.
 * Done.


 * This assumes, per G.K . Tipps Should it be "G.K. Tipps" or "G. K. Tipps"?
 * Well I think there should be a gap, but someone keeps "correcting" it. I'll change it and we'll see what happens.


 * "present day Oudna, Tunisia" --> "present-day Oudna, Tunisia" in the infobox.
 * Done.


 * out a night march with the intention of launching a surprise --> "out a night march to launch a surprise"
 * Done.


 * I see a lot "apparently" maybe reduce a little bit.
 * I have cut two of the three.
 * You mean two of the four?
 * Cnrl-f only finds one "apparently", in "Battle". Where are you seeing another?
 * Whoops was the mistake of my PC which strangely gave four.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, that was great. Thanks a lot. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Just replied to the little issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Cheers . My three responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * group of Carthaginians also faced a frontal counterattack by Roman reserves counterattack --> counter-attack.
 * Cheers. Done.

Hi Back to you. :-) . Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * {ping|Gog the Mild}} Back to you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope that's anything I believe. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
Nice work as always, Gog. Some comments from me:
 * Lead
 * no redlink for Bostar?
 * As I said to above "Cos this is his one and only appearance in history and I don't see that there will ever be enough information on him to warrant creating an article. (Hasdrubal pops up again and I have him on my "Create an article" list.)" I don't much care and am happy to be told that I have the wrong end of the stick.


 * I wonder if, when referring to a Hasdrubal, we should explain which one he is? ie "Hasdrubal, son of Hanno"
 * I have added a footnote at first mention. That do?


 * say Carthage was the capital?
 * Done.


 * comma after "Battle of Tunis"
 * Only if I can also have one after "later". Otherwise, by the grammar I use, it is wrong. I have inserted both, see what you think.


 * Body
 * move the links to Ancient Carthage and Roman Republic to "Carthaginian and Roman"
 * Done.


 * suggest "and had gained control of most of Sicily via military operations" military meaning land forces, or alternatively "land operations"
 * I have added "using their army"> (Out of interest, why should "military" exclude naval forces?)


 * "and so could be supplied and reinforced by sea"
 * Done.


 * link Carthage (the city)
 * I thought I had. Apologies.


 * link consul
 * Done.


 * suggest "They took 20,000 slaves, "vast herds of cattle", and after a brief siege, captured the city of Aspis "
 * Done.


 * link infantry and cavalry
 * Seriously? Done.


 * suggest "the same size as the Roman force"
 * Done.


 * suggest "a more wealthy minority"
 * Done.


 * "rebelling against Carthage" no mention of this until now, could you introduce it earlier?
 * I had "by fomenting rebellion among Carthage's subject territories", but I have rephrased both to make it a little clearer.


 * well-armoured?
 * Thhe weakest of my numerous weak points. Done.


 * move the spear link to first mention
 * Done.


 * rather than Spain, would it be better to go with Iberian Peninsula or something? link?
 * I was certain I had changed that! Now "Iberia".


 * "Determined to prevent stop the Romans despoiling the countryside" as they were already doing it
 * Fair point. I have inserted "further" instead. That do?


 * link Nigel Bagnall
 * Done.


 * wing, or assault? wing is usually used to refer to the extreme flank of one formed body, not split bodies of troops
 * Bizarre! I have precisely the reverse understanding. I have just had to check several texts to ensure that I am not going loopy. Possibly your usage is a very modern and formal in-military one? A historian referring to the "right wing" of an army means the rightmost third (give or take). Any hoo, I have switched to "column".


 * suggest "faced a frontal counter-attack" and link
 * Both done.


 * drop the comma from "the Spartan, mercenary commander"
 * Done.


 * link Battle of Cape Hermaeum
 * Done.


 * the figure of 16,000 only appears in the infobox?
 * True. But the article gives "4,000 cavalry and 12,000 infantry", so I have put that in the infobox.

That's my lot. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Cheers Peacemaker67 and thanks for sorting out my sloppiness yet again. You seem to be looking at a lot of my articles, and I appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

 * I would omit the Google books links if they don't link specifically to the content being supported, especially as they're inconsistent with the non-linked books.
 * Removed.


 * Checks of Tipps 1985, relying on JSTOR version:
 * Tipps 1985 does'nt seem to support "The main source for almost every aspect of the First Punic War[note 2] is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage". It only says that Polybius has the most complete account of a particular battle.
 * Groan. True. It looks as if I added this to Goldsworthy for my first 1PW article and have been omitting to delete it ever since. Sloppy, sloppy. Now deleted. The sentence relies on Goldsworthy "By far the most important [ancient source] was the Greek historian Polybius"; "[Polybius] as a result provides our most complete and reliable account of the First Punic War".


 * Likewise, it doesn't support "Other, later, ancient histories of the war exist, but in fragmentary or summary form", since it refers to other accounts of that particular battle.
 * Same again. Tipps deleted. The statement is a summary of Goldsworthy from bottom of p. 21 to the end of p. 23 where he discusses the other sources.


 * "details of the battle in modern sources are almost entirely based on interpretations of Polybius's account" which battle?
 * Very good question. It should read 'war', not "battle"; now changed. It goes to Tipps' statement "[Polybius] our best authority for the First Punic War as a whole."


 * "The Roman fleet of 330 warships plus an unknown number of transport ships sailed from Ostia, the port of Rome, in early 256 BC, commanded by the consuls for the year, Marcus Atilius Regulus and Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus" the cited page does not mention either Regulus or Longus.
 * You are correct. I have made a Horlicks of the references. Tipps p. 445 covers my "from Ostia, the port of Rome, in early 256 BC"; the commanders are named on p. 446. Cite amended accordingly.


 * " With a combined total of about 680 warships carrying up to 290,000 crew and marines, the battle was possibly the largest naval battle in history by the number of combatants involved" Tipps does not support this as far as I can tell; he argues that Polybius figures are almost certainly an exaggeration (so the actual number was significantly less than 290,000) and I cannot find where he says it was the largest naval battle in history.
 * Polybius: to the contrary, his whole argument is that Polybius' figures are as good as we have, and he spends pp. 436-445 demolishing the arguments of the early 20th C historians who had argued against Polybius. He merely quibbles that the total number of Carthaginians should be a little less than 150,000 (147,000 - see Lazenby p. 86) rather than a little more. Hence my "up to". See his p. 445 for "something over a quarter of a million men were involved". Goldsworthy gives the same figures as Tipps, with a milder caveat regarding the 140,000. Lazenby has "the battle involved nearly 290,000 men".
 * I am assuming that we are in agreement that Tipps gives a total of 680 warships? Lazenby and Goldsworthy both give 330+350=680.
 * Largest battle: true I was relying on Lazenby p. 87 - "probably the greatest sea-battle ever fought".
 * If only one author says so (and "greatest" has other meanings than "largest")—it is probably best to quote and attribute. This is quite a strong statement.
 * In context it is clear that he means largest (by number of combatants). A quick browse also gives "may have involved the largest number of combatants of any naval battle in history" by Rankov in Hoyos's Companion to the Punic Wars. But I take your point. I have relegated it to a footnote and quoted and in line attributed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "When they met in the Battle of Cape Ecnomus, the Carthaginians took the initiative, anticipating that their superior ship handling skills would tell" I cannot see where this is supported on the cited page.
 * True. This is all supported by Goldsworthy. Tipps was there for "poor Roman generalship", which got edited out and I didn't remove the cite. Which I have now done.


 * "100,000 men lost" no mention of the figure on the cited page
 * True. The 100,000 is in Miles. Tipps is relied on for the number of ships lost, and the logic as to how the figure was arrived at. Which has been subject to some historiographical dispute - see Tipps pp. 436-445.

(t &#183; c) buidhe 04:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you would like a copy of any of the pages of sources you can't access on line.


 * Thanks for this, and for picking up several instances of my being sloppy. Your comments all addressed above, hopefully cogently. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will have to AGF on other sources as I can't access them. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

 * "..two previously unrecorded generals named Hasdrubal and Bostar.." What do we gain from saying "previously unrecorded"?
 * Removed.


 * Didn't CPA moan about the citation order: "the same size as the Roman force.[50][1]" (I like it.)
 * So, does that mean that you require me to reorder it or not? It's not an MoS nor FAC requirement.
 * As you say, no need to reorder it. Harrias  talk 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "..and would serve.." Please can we just use "served"?
 * Done.


 * "with a more wealthy minority providing" Noun plus -ing?
 * Changed.


 * Might be worth explaining "open order".
 * Done.


 * "..they possibly represented four slightly under-strength legions: two Roman and two allied." This speculation needs attribution.
 * Done.


 * "..and his failure to make up his deficiency in cavalry in particular is puzzling." POV.
 * Attributed.


 * "Most of the Carthaginian infantry would fight in.." Fought?
 * Done.


 * I would consider merging note 6 into the prose, I think it is a pertinent fact.
 * Done.


 * "..made the audacious decision.." Who says it was audacious?
 * Tipps: "an exceptionally audacious uphill charge"; "Regulus' hard-charging audacity". Now better cited, sorry about that.


 * Hmm, "Tipps describes the plan as a demonstration of Regulus's "recklessness"." might get you off the hook.

Not a massive amount from me; another nice, informative article on this war. I will claim WikiCup points for this review, and if care to return the favour, a review of Featured article candidates/2010 Twenty20 Cup Final/archive1 would be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 09:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all addressed. I am sure that I will be able to review that fine game of cricket. PS When are gongs for the GAN drive due to be dished out and/or do you need a hand with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support on prose; looks good to me. Harrias  talk 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz
Sorry Gog, just thought while I was feeling punic, I'd add some comments and suggestions to this one:)
 * That's fine Jenny. Suggestions for improvement are welcome at any time.


 * on a rocky hill near Adys where - a bit disconcerting to click on Adys and the Uthina page does not mention this name
 * Fixed.


 * felt the need for - per Cape Herm "on the few occasions they had previously needed a naval presence"?
 * That means something slightly different. What is it about the original that is the problem? Possibly it could be resolved a different way.
 * That relates to my comment here, the word "felt" sounds iffy to me. Does a nation 'feel' the need for a navy? But if it's just me feeling "felt" is feeble, no worries :)
 * I see your point. I am talking about "the Romans", not "Rome", so it is not strictly incorrect. (IMO.) One could equally argue that a nation cannot "need" anything. I started to change this, but the more I think on it the more I believe that it is within the ambit of normal, professional, prose; so I have left it.


 * in maintaining and increasing the - swap order to increasing and maintaining?
 * Done - although I think that you are missing the nuance of the original. But probably only I am aware of it and the new version does read better.


 * They embarked approximately 26,000 legionaries picked - move wlink up to here?
 * Done.


 * superior ship handling skills - hyphen?
 * Done.


 * by encouraging Carthage's rebellious subject territories - encouraging to do what? maybe encouraging rebellion/rebelliousness in Carthage's subject territories
 * It has already been noted that they were rebelling. It honestly reads fine to me, and the meaning seems clear. Does this really need rephrasing?


 * served as javelin-armed skirmishers. - in other articles this series the link is to Skirmisher. ( Plus, Velites says a class "from 211 to 107 BC")
 * Wikipedia is of course renown as an unreliable source. The source cited specifies "velites". Happy to change it though if you wish. (And there is no FAC, MoS or other requirement for consistency between articles. :-) )


 * tightly-packed formation - remove adverb hyphen
 * Done.


 * Modern historians point out that the Carthaginian generals...of their cavalry and elephants - a rather long sentence, perhaps break at "although the modern..."
 * Good point. Broken at "especially.
 * Not 100% sure that reads properly now but no biggie.
 * You are correct. I have tweaked it to be grammatical.


 * Finding these completely unacceptable - insert terms after "these"
 * Done.


 * with any of our other accounts".[16][note 3] - you prefer notes to appear first?
 * Done.


 * crew and marines[note 5][36][31][39] - ref order
 * size as the Roman force.[50][1] - ref order
 * combat was protracted.[56][58][note 7] - note first?
 * were present at Adys.[59][56] - ref order


 * Sources - Hoyos, Dexter (2015) [2011]. and Koon, Sam (2015) [2011] - move to below Hoyos, Dexter (2007)
 * Weird. Done.


 * Sidwell, Keith C.; Jones, Peter V. - authorlink belongs to Jones, add 2
 * Done.

That's all, JennyOz (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That was great Jenny, many thanks. Your points all addressed, although a couple have not been actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Messed my ping up. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Gog, added 2 minor replies above but am very happy to now add my support. JennyOz (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Jenny and thanks. Both good follow up points. I have gone with one and, after thought, left the other as was - see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators
Hi Ian. In the light of the above, could I have permission to post another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought I'd answered this but I guess I messed the save or something -- sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. I am cheered to hear that it is not just me who does that. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
can we get resolution on the comment above? "Resolved" does not really help in determining consensus on an FAC and it's becoming a bit tiresome to continually ping you back to FACs to have you clarify your meaning. Please don't just put "resolved" unless you also give some indication of support or opposition. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , has not edited since the 7th, and has only made five edits in the last two weeks. (And this nomination has just collected another support.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I was just working my way up the nominations. Quite honestly, if he can't be bothered to take things on board... anyway, promoted. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * am I being over-eager? Apologies. Ian has threatened to put me on the naughty step! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)