Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hamilcar's victory with Naravas/archive1

Hamilcar's victory with Naravas

 * Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Another obscure North African campaign involving the Carthaginians. This went through GAN a couple of months ago and I have worked on it a little since then. I believe that it is now up to FA standard. As with several similar submissions, scholarly discussion is limited enough that I believe that I have covered everything of note, but sufficient that I believe that there is enough to warrant an FAC. Feel free to disagree, on this or anything else. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Image review—pass indeed I think I've seen all these images before (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
 * Autaritus or Autharitus?
 * Oops. The former. Standardised.


 * "The rebels were finally defeated in 238 BC. " - the text is not so certain on this; which is correct?
 * Lead expanded to clarify.


 * Be consistent in when you include publication location
 * Fixed.


 * Eckstein ref is misformatted - this appears to be an encyclopedia entry
 * It is called an encyclopedia, but it isn't. It is a straight forward set of history volumes.


 * Scullard: current title should be split across multiple parameters.
 * Done.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikkimaria, I think that I have now sorted everything. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Iazyges

 * Reviewed this at GAN, happy to support it for FAC. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Serial Numerus LIVCXXIX
A battle so obscure we don't know where it took place, excellent.
 * Hail! Consul Numerus.

Suggest this is raised far sooner than it is: at the moment, 1st para of fifth section and nothing in the lead. So perhaps Hamilcar's victory with Naravas was a battle that took place in 240 BC.... Although remember that per WP:AVOIDBOLD, there's no pressure on you to shoehorn the title into the lead if it reads uncomfortably.
 * Lack of location is now covered in the third sentence of the lead. I feel quite comfortable with the way the title is worked into the lead.

(Here's an example you won't find at all memorable!)
 * No, doesn't ring any bells. Someone I know?

For instance, you could remove the bolding and say something like In 240 BC a battle was fought at a now-unknown Tunisian location between.... Either way, however it's dealt with in the lead, suggest an etymology section before everything else, perhaps just transposing the explanation from where it is now to the top.
 * But I don't mention any insects?

By the way, welcome back to FAC!
 * I was going to say the same. I hadn't realised that I had been away.

—— Serial  15:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers Numerus LIVCXXIX, all covered, I think. And apologies for taking so long over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

HF - support
I'll stick this onto my to-do list. Ping me if I haven't gotten to this over the next few days. Hog Farm Talk 06:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "under Auharitus" - possible typo?
 * Possibly.


 * Link Polybius in the lead?
 * Done.


 * Map in the prelude section - which number is this battle, or what relative area? It's not marked
 * The caption includes "The numeral "7" represents the Battle of the Saw, although the location is extremely approximate". Is this insufficient?
 * That's good for The Saw, but of the possible location points for this battle, the only ones indicated are Tunis and Utica. Although I don't know that it's possible to really convey on a map a location that disputed, so this is fine.
 * you are quite right. It's "6". Changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * " If Hannibal was to avoid starvation, he was going to have to leave his camp " - this is the first mention of Hannibal, can his role be better introduced before this point?
 * Good spot. Typo for Hamilcar - too many Carthaginian generals whose names begin with H!


 * "was a young Numidian noble named Navaras" - wrong spelling/link?
 * Gah! Spelling corrected.

Good work here, that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 20:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . All sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Funk

 * Oh, seems like one of the few times recently that Gog's FACs has lingered far enough for me to get in on it in time. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "south west of their capital." What does "their" refer to?
 * Does "increased the area of Africa controlled by Carthage. He extended its control to Theveste (modern Tébessa, in Algeria) 300 km (190 mi) south west of their capital" not make this clear?


 * Wouldn't the "Modern recreations" photo make more sense under Opposing armies (and right aligned)?
 * Done.


 * "describes to this as "a gross oversimplification" Remove "to"?
 * Done.


 * The link here to Libyans goes to Berbers, which is already linked. Something more specific to link to? Ancient Libya?
 * I just changed the redirect link of Ancient Libyans to go to the above instead. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "Both Spain and Gaul" Anything to link?
 * I am assuming that both would fall foul of MOS:OVERLINK, but I will grit my teeth and link both if you insist.


 * War elephant is duplinked.
 * Oops. Thanks. Fixed.


 * "with widely separated possibilities being suggested" Could we get some examples? With the article being so short, I don't think it would hurt elaborating on this point.
 * Some of the suggested locations added. I assume 'don't have a clue' is unencyclopedic?


 * Navaras links to Indian aesthetics... I guess it's just a typo for Naravas. That spelling is used at least once, with a wrong link..
 * Yeah, several sources spell it that way[!], which makes it difficult for me to keep straight. Fixed.


 * Where were the Romans in all this? One might expect them to support the rebels? Or perhaps that's covered in the article about the wider mercenary war?
 * It is. They didn't. They actively supported the Carthaginians. I could include some of this in Background if you think it relevant.


 * "An illustration by Victor Armand Poirson which envisages the crucifixion of Spendius and his lieutenants in front of Tunis." Where is this identification from? Neither the Commons description or the source it is taken form are this specific.
 * I took it from here - "Nineteenth-century French illustrator Victor Armand Poirson envisages the crucifixion of Spendius and his lieutenants in front of Tunis."
 * Strange, when I click onwards to Commons, that text disappears? Could it be added to the Commons description? And can we be certain it's correct? Are there any sources that confirm it? Other changes look good, by he way. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am sure that I have seen this in passing at some point. But nearly two hours of searching has not turned it up. The illustration is from the 1890 edition of Flaubert's Salammbo, illustrated by Poirson and is fairly obviously depicting "He had the ten emissaries crucified, next to the other, on a mound in front of the city". [Auto-translate from the original French.] Note the city in the background. There is probably a copy of this book somewhere on the net - eg in the French National Library - but I can't find it to specifically reference to. That BnF link contains "Note(s):Signed lower: "V.A. Poirson 85". On the back: "M. Quantin - 10 - Chap. XIV"" - the quote I gave above is from chapter 14 - that is as close as I can get. So let me know if you think I should dial back the specificity of the caption. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I found a hi res version on Gallica, which is kind of the French Archive.org, perhaps it could be used instead, and I'm pretty sure that if the illustration is there, they also have the full publication. But I'm always a bit puzzled by the interface of that site, so I'm not sure how to find it, maybe you'll have more luck. But yeah, I'd say that it's best to be as close to the original caption as possible, whatever it is. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks FunkMonk. Yeah, I had seen that, and tracked it back to Rouen where the hard copy is, but still nothing on line. I have amended the caption to "An illustration by Victor Armand Poirson which envisages the crucifixions in front of Tunis." Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, not much more to do here. But should we get the high res version on Commons and replace the smaller version? FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By all means. Commons is a bit terra incognita to me, and while I am willing to have a thumb fingered attempt if you don't mind doing the replacing I would be grateful. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Link Numidian cavalry in the article body too.
 * Done.


 * "Polybius to term it the "Truceless War"" This particular battle, or the mercenary war in general?
 * Er, the war; hence Truceless War. And I start the sentences with "From this point" to attempt to make clear that the whole war is being referred to.


 * Hi : great stuff, thank you. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators
Could I have permission to fire my next one up? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Go ahead (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)