Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one shortly. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that some sort of record? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did know it was coming! I should make a start later this afternoon, once I'm done with the source review on Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I have just emailed another editor about Hajj; thanks. You are clearly not as busy as I had supposed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

• 2a. The article contains a list of references, in an appropriately titled section. A few non-GA required recommendations for the formatting of the references themselves below.
  • Consider linking Craige B. Champion, Filippo Coarelli, Adrian Goldsworthy on the first or both instances (not just the second), and Howard Hayes Scullard (only linked on the middle of three uses at the moment, two of which have his middle initial, one of which doesn't).

All done.

• • MOS initial spacing issues for "Dudley, D.R.", "Walbank, F.W."

Done.

• • No county for Warminster in "Lazenby, John (1998)", or state for Berkeley in "Walbank, F.W. (1990)"? For consistency, they would include them.

Added.

• • Query do you have two copies of A Companion to the Punic Wars? "Hoyos, Dexter (2015) [2011]", and most of the chapters within are listed with "Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. ISBN 978-1-1190-2550-4." However, for "Zimmermann, Klaus (2015) [2011]", the details differ: "Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 280–298. ISBN 978-1-405-17600-2." This wouldn't even be an issue at FA if you have two referred to two copies with those differing details, but I found it intriguing.

The on line version is Chichester, the hardback is Oxford. I have access to both, although so far as I have been able to tell they are identical.

• 2b. All citations are to apparently reliable sources.
• 2c. Spotchecks carried out on three facts cited to accessible sources:
  • "His works include a now largely lost manual on military tactics," – Sourced to ref #3, Shutt 1938, p. 53. Appears in the source.
  • "The site of the battle is generally, but not universally, believed to be a flat area to the south of Sicca (modern El Kef), the Draa el Metnan." – Sourced to ref #110, Taylor 2019, pp. 313–314. Appears in the source.
  • "The formerly Carthaginian territories became the Roman province of Africa." – Sourced to ref #181 and #182. Appears in ref #181, unable to access #182, but happy enough.
• 2d. Checks on those same sources as for 2c. for copyvio or close-paraphrasing reveals no concerns.

Images[edit]

• 6a. Minor issue below, but it doesn't prevent compliance in my mind. Nikki can wrangle with it at FA if necessary.
  • Why does File:Helmet typ Montefortino 01.jpg have a ((PD-old-100-1923))? I can't see that the helmet itself can be copyrighted, only the photo should need a tag. Not really an issue I guess, too many tags is better than too few.

Don't be so sure. In Italy a photograph of the exterior wall of a public building is copyright, unless you can establish that the architect has been dead for 90 years. "If in doubt, tag it."

• 6b. Again, only a very minor issue below, not enough to prevent GA compliance.
  • File:Stele des Polybios.jpg is captioned "Polybius". Are we in granny sucking eggs territory if I were to suggest maybe we should say it is a "Carved relief of Polybius"? We do, after all, provide such detail for the bust of Scipio later.

Yes. Perhaps "Photons striking your eyes and causing your central nervous system to create the illusion that your monitor contains the illusion of a monochromatic photograph of a carved relief of Polybius'?

• • File:Mohammad adil rais-battle of zama-1.PNG is a bit crude, but I guess it does the job.

You just can't get proper craftsmen these days! (Did you see what I ditched?)

There is a dearth of even vaguely relevant and acceptable (File:Schlacht bei Zama Gemälde H P Motte.jpg, shudder!) PD images. Given that I personally don't see the point of them outside maps and similar I find this especially annoying.

Prose review to follow. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

• 3a. Clearly no issue on this point.
• 3b. It's no secret that we have differing opinions on this. For some context, I've also included the relevant FA criteria, because I know you are worried about making changes at GA that could compromise a future FA. My reading of 3b of the GA criteria, and point 4 of the FA criteria is they are essentially equivalent. If I think the article goes into too much unnecessary detail for an FA, then the same must apply at GA. But you've said in discussions elsewhere that you are worried that removing content will make the article no longer complaint with 1b. So I'm going to concern myself with content included in here that I do not think is necessary to "place the subject (in this case the Battle of Zuma) in context".
  • Overall, I'm pretty happy with the "Background" section; it mentions the First Punic War, and nicely summarises the "European campaign" of the Second. The only removal I would suggest is "These Numidians were mostly lightly equipped skirmishers who threw javelins from a distance and avoided close combat." And that's only because it is covered later in the "Opposing forces" section, where I think it is better suited anyway.

Whoops. It is frustrating how I can proofread something several times and still miss obvious points. Thanks. Gone.

• • The Prelude section is great for a prelude to the invasion as a whole, but is a bit too detailed for me as context for Zama itself. I would prefer it be retitled to something like "Roman preparations for invasion of North Africa", but that is largely neither here nor there. The first two paragraphs are okay.

You make a good case, and so retitled "Roman preparations".

• • Given the amount of details later given to the numbers and experience levels of those at Zama, I think the discussion of numbers in the third paragraph is too detailed. I wouldn't keep much more than "Modern historians estimate a combat strength of 25,000–30,000, of whom more than 90 per cent were infantry." and then the detail about the training if you want it, and the gathering of supplies.

Fair. Trimmed. Possibly not quite as much as you would prefer.

• • "..including some units made up of Carthaginian citizens." This is relatively meaningless until the sentence later that "Carthaginian citizens only served in their army if there was a direct threat to the city of Carthage." I'd just cut it, or specify that they worried Carthage itself was under threat.

Cut.

• • Opposing forces is fine.
  • Invasion. Thank you for the work you're already done on this, but I still think there is too much detail not needed to understand Zama.
    • "..in 400 transport ships, escorted by 40 galleys. Three days later.." We've already established overall numbers, do we need to know this, or how long the journey took?

Some of that trimmed.

• • • "..with either 200 or 2,000 men, the sources differ.." Again, we don't need to know the numbers at this stage. Something like: "Masinissa joined the Romans with a reduced force after having been recently defeated by his Numidian rival Syphax, who had been persuaded to take action in support of Carthage."

I would like to keep the numbers in. Let me know if it is something you feel really strongly about and would like the full explanation. I think the net reduction is about what you were looking at anyway.

• • • "..and a Carthaginian army under Hasdrubal set up a fortified camp 11 kilometres (7 mi) from the Romans. Syphax joined him, establishing his own camp 3 kilometres (2 mi) away from Hasdrubal's." Do we need to know the specifics of how far away they were? They set up camps, outnumbered the Romans, and forced them to pull back.

Trimmed.

Right, that's all I have time for right now, will come back to this later. Feel free to shout at me in the meantime. If you think I'm being completely unreasonable, and our interpretations of the criteria are just too wildly apart, shout even more, and I'll withdraw from the review for someone else to look at it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Stick with it. I'm a big boy, I can handle a reviewer ripping the heart out of my prose politely challenging my tendency to verbosity. It's character forming. And you do it so well. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Harrias: All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ironically, given I said there were no 3a concerns, and I've been telling you to cut stuff, my only remaining issue with the balance will probably see potentially see something added in. The article deals at length with Scipio's arrival in Africa, his preparations and his campaign through Africa, but as to Hannibal's return, as far as I can see, all we get is "Carthage also recalled both Hannibal and Mago from Italy.." and then "The Carthaginian Senate repeatedly ordered Hannibal to advance from its base at Hadrumetum (modern Sousse) and deal with Scipio's army, but Hannibal delayed until he had been reinforced by 2,000 Numidian cavalry led by a relative of Syphax – they were reputed to be elite troops." When did he return to Africa, how many men did he bring back with him, where did he land? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laughs long and loud. The first two paragraphs of "Prelude", bar the first two sentences, are the new material covering this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I deserve that. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a. A few minor issues on which we don't agree, but they are stylistic preferences, and I'm content that the article meets the criteria as written. I might revisit at FA if I feel like it.
  • Second paragraph of the "Background" section has five sentences, four of which start: "From 236 BC", "In 226 BC", "In 219 BC", "In early 218 BC", which makes it sound a bit bullet point-y.

I like bullet points. They are a good way of conveying information. I clearly got a bit carried away here. Fixed.

• • "..in particular in terms of cavalry.." To avoid close repetition of "in", could this be "..particularly in terms of cavalry.."?

I have gone with "especially in terms of cavalry."

• • "A series of exchanges of negotiating parties followed; Scipio obtained information.." The semi-colon feels wrong here. I can't put my finger on why, but it feels it would flow better as "A series of exchanges of negotiating parties followed, during which Scipio obtained information.." This is probably a personal preference thing though.

Looks a bit better to me too. Done.

• • "When recalled the limited number of ships available meant that few horses could be taken, many were slaughtered, and that many newer recruits were left in Italy." I'd just cut the "many were slaughtered" bit. It creates close repetition of "many" with the subsequent statement, and just isn't really needed, as the statement before gives the important information.

Done.

• • "..ordered Hannibal to advance from its base at Hadrumetum.." I find "its" odd here. If it refers to Hannibal, it should be "his"; does it refer to the Carthaginian Senate? I'd prefer "his", unless there is a specific reason against it.

Gah! Done.

• • "..and there is no record of reinforcements.." and then "..ancient sources agree that the Romans were reinforced by 6,000 Numidian infantry and 4,000 cavalry under Masinissa." Should the first clarify there is no record of Roman reinforcements? Or find an alternative word in the second case, such as "supported by".

Lol. Sorted.

• • "..the best of a bad job.." Is this encyclopaedic language?

It works for me, but tweaked anyway.

• • "The Carthaginian infantry, like the Romans' went in the centre." Comma after Romans' please.

Death to commas! Done.

• • "..Moor archers and Moor and.." Switch the link to the first Moor.

Rolly eyes!

• • "..is variously estimated at 12,000[142] 15,000–20,000.." Missing a comma after 12,000.

Inserted.

• • "Terrified by the swashbuckling infantry and their bugles the majority stampeded into the.." I'd like a comma after bugles to help readability of this sentence.

Also inserted. AirshipJungleman29 will be so happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • "..and commenced a hard-fought, close-quarter, hand-to-hand combat." I'm not sure the "a" should be there.

I am. I am referring to "a combat". As in Wiktionary's first definition "A battle, a fight (often one in which weapons are used)."

• • "..according to Polybius to the point of fighting them off." I found this difficult to parse; could you flip it: "..to the point of fighting them off according to Polybius."

Hmm. That reads clunkily, and worse, to me. How about if I insert a semi colon?

• • "The survivors of the front rank.." To improve flow, consider adding "As such" at the start of this sentence.

Seriously, how does that improve flow? Happy to tweak, but not convinced that is the tweak we need.

• 1b. No issues with the relevant sections of the MOS.
  • Not actually a GA requirement, but it hurts my eyes, and very much will be an FA requirement: "This extended from drills by individual centuries - the basic Roman army manoeuvre unit of 80 men - to exercises by the full army." Endashes please.

Done

• • Another personal preference; for the "Invasion section", consider restructuring it so tha first paragraph and "Battle of Utica" are merged into one section called "Utica", then the next three paragraphs go into another, "Battles of the Great Plains and Cirta", then make "Prelude" its own level 2 heading. Or don't, but I think it would improve the flow and readability of the article by making it less bitty, while merging similar sections.

Sliced a little differently, to similar effect. See what you think.

I like that. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Probably not a 1b. issue, and not at all required, but personally, I'd merge refs 124 and 125. The source-text integrity would be plenty fine with them together, and it would avoid the citation spam.

Ho hum, done.

• • "..against their shields - swashbuckling." Another endash, please.

Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Harrias, a lovely level of detail which is much appreciated. All addressed, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good here, passing. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]