Talk:Battle of the Great Plains/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Hog Farm _Talk 18:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 18:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this soon (hopefully this weekend). Hog Farm _Talk 18:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" After several month's of little activity Scipio" - this may be an AmEng/BrEng issue, but should the apostrophe be ommitted?

LOL. Removed.

Link both Hannibal and Mago in the lead

Done.

"and imposed a further 1,200 talent indemnity.[note 2][9][10] actions which fuelled Carthaginian resentment." - should the period after indemnity be a comma?

Yes. Nice spot.

"established a strong camp on a flat floodplain of the Bagradas River known as the Great Plains. " - not seeing where Goldsworthy mentions a floodplain, although it's hard to make sure I'm not just overlooking the mention because the edition Internet Archive has doesn't have page numbers

I'm not sure where that came from. Removed.

"On the Roman right flank were the cavalry attached to the four legions with Laelius in command" - The Goldsworthy edition on Internet Archive doesn't seem to mention Laelius - am I look at a different edition than the one you have?

No. Probably me reading past what it actually says. Source which does specify this added.

Masinissa taking over Syphax's kingdom is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body.

Ah, whoops. Fixed.

Something seems wrong with the pagination for Rawlings 2015 - p. 305 is cited, but the given range in the long citation isn't anywhere close to p. 305

Gah. I gave the range of a completely different chapter. Thanks for spotting.

Are Briscoe and Scullard chapters from the same larger work? If so, recommend making the long citations more consistent

Weeell. Chapters from different volumes of the same overall "work". Within that limitation, standardised.

Sources all appear to be reliable
No issues with image licensing noted

Good work here, placing on hold. Hog Farm _Talk 02:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Hog Farm. You caught some tricksy bits. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.