Jump to content

Talk:Battle of the Trebia/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 08:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias talk 08:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • Briscoe, John (2006): the page range needs a pp.
Done.
  • Collins, Roger (1998): if Briscoe above uses "Cambridge: Cambridge University Press", this should do the same for "Oxford University Press". (Add a location.)
Done.
  • Fronda, Michael P. (2015): it doesn't really matter, but is there a reason that this is from a different version of A Companion to the Punic Wars to the others used? (This is also the case for Zimmermann, Klaus (2015) [2011].)
I think that I used my hard copy for most and checked a couple on line. But they check out as identical, so I have standarised.
  • Hoyos, Dexter (2005): needs an endash in the year range in the title.
Done.
  • Jones, Archer (1987): to be consistent with the other references, include the state in the location.
Done.
  • Lazenby, John (1998): as above, to be consistent with the other references, include the county in the location.
Done.
  • Mahaney, W.C. (2008): per MOS:INITIALS the initials should probably be spaced out: Mahaney, W. C.
Done.
  • Rawlings, Louis (1996): the page range is missing an endash. Be consistent between this and Sabin, Philip (1996) as to whether you code it as issue 67 or volume 67.
Done.
  • Scullard, Howard H. (2006) [1989]: this looks like a chapter from the previous book in the series to Briscoe, John (2006), but the books are formatted quite differently; for example, the first lists the volume number in Roman numerals using the |volume tag, the second states "Volume 7, Part 2, 2nd Edition". I would try to make these two books consistently formatted if possible.
I have tweaked a little, but the VIII and 7 are reproduced as they are on the title pages. As I consider the m to be part of the titles I am loath to change either.
Done.
  • Tipps, G.K. (1985): per MOS:INITIALS the initials should probably be spaced out: Tipps, G. K.
Done.
  • Walbank, F.W. (1990): per MOS:INITIALS the initials should probably be spaced out: Walbank, F. W.
Done.
  • These are all minor points, and otherwise the references are provided in a consistent and appropriate manner.
  • All sources appear to be to reliable secondary sources.
Addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
Handy tool. Done.
I had this in a previous review. There is Latin or nothing. As I give nearly all of the place names in Latin in the article, I consider this image better than not having it, but could delete it if the cost:benefit doesn't work for you.
Done.
  • It could maybe do with some better battlefield maps, but not a major issue for GA. :P

Prose review to follow. Harrias talk 07:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
  • "..accept it largely at face value, and the details of the battle in modern sources are largely based on.." Slightly irritating repetition of "largely" here; could the second one become "predominantly" or similar?
Fixed.
  • "In 218 BC a Carthaginian army under Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum.[38][39] In spring 219 BC Rome declared war on Carthage." Should these years be the other way around?
Yes. (I can't handle this backwards counting.) Fixed.
  • "..marching north in May 218 BC He entered Gaul.." Missing full-stop.#
Stray upper case. Fixed.
  • Link "velites" on first use. Also, javelin.
Both done.
  • "javelinmen" looks awful to me, I would favour javelin-men. But if BrEng sources support "javelinmen", then so be it. (And yes, I know, swordsmen, pikemen, spearmen, riflemen. Fine, I've talked myself out of this one. I should just delete it, but blah.)
I am going with your second, third and fourth thoughts. Javelin-men or javelin men look semi-literate to me.
  • "..the small Roman cavalry reserve, to which Scipio had attached himself.." Not sure the comma is necessary here.
Uum. Well. If you are sure. I am so parsimonious with commas that I cannot recall ever being asked to remove one before. (It looks wrong to me though.)
Well, now I feel bad; I love commas, and other punctuation. Harrias talk 13:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It makes a refreshing change from being asked to insert, what to me seem to be, random commas, usually by Americans. Rereading, that phrase now means something subtlety different from what I wrote, but I doubt anyone will notice. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..by his 16-year-old son." Come now, give the lad a name: "..by his 16-year-old son, Scipio Africanus." You'd have to tweak the next sentence accorindingly, changing "Scipio" to "Publius" for clarity.
Why? He's linked, if anyone cares. Unnecessary detail IMO. Sigh. Done.
Because otherwise it is an unnecessary WP:EASTEREGG. If he is worth mentioning to and linking, he is worth naming. Or something like that. You know that I just make this rubbish up as I go along... Harrias talk 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; I know. Per WP:WHATHARRIASSAYS.
  • "Two days after Ticinus.." Because you never named the battle as such in the article, this sounds odd.
Ah! Good spot. And masterly use of understatement. Fixed.
  • Move the link to Po (River) up the first use, in the Carthage invades Italy section.
Done.
  • "..8 kilometres (5.0 mi).." Drop the miles figure to one sigfig.
Done. It is supposed to do that automatically.
  • "..the Senate ordered this to move north to assist Scipio." Just for ease of reading, maybe change to "ordered this army to"
Done.
  • "..camping one to seven miles apart (2–12 km)" These figures should be given the other way around (kilometres then miles) to be consistent with other usage.
They should, and done. I was just blindly copying the source.
  • "..each others forces.." Missing an apostrophe.
Added.
  • "..about 5 miles (8.0 km).." As above regarding both the order and number of significant figures.
Both done.
Done.
  • "..and a 90 centimetres (3.0 ft) shield." This needs to be hyphenated: "a 90-centimetre (3 ft) shield."
Done.
  • "The close order North African infantry.." close-order?
Done.
  • Note 9: "These elephants were typically about 2.5-metre-high (8 ft) at the shoulder.." I don't think that usage should be hyphenated? It certainly should be "metres" rather than "metre" at least.
Actually, neither of those were an error. (Which is certainly a change.) My seconds shall call on you, siree: style guides at dawn!
Go on, explain it to me. I would agree if we were saying "a 2.5-metre-high elephant", but this way around, I don't see why it is? Harrias talk 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, it trritates me to have to say that the source I drew that from agrees with you in both respects! Grr.. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..that 8,000 of the close order infantry were Gauls.." close-order?
Done.
  • "In addition there were the elephants." Worth repeating that there were whatever was left of the 37 that set out, I think.
I had left that out to avoid irritating repetition, but now repeated.

Reviewed to the end of the Opposing forces section so far. Harrias talk 11:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff Harrias. Thanks. All now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..in an old watercourse full of brush." Is there a link to an article or Wiktionary that we can use here for "brush"?
Linked to Shrubland.
  • I don't know if "..to drive in the Roman pickets.." would be accessible to a leyperson.
I like the idea of a leyperson. Tweaked the language and linked pickets.
  • "two-and-a-half miles (3 km)" Again, this needs to be flipped. It is also worth noting that 2.5 miles is four km.
Oops. Done.
  • The numbers in the Opposing forces section don't match those in the Formations section, I take it this is due to the losses suffered from the harrying of the Numidian cavalry? It seems quite a big discrepancy though, unless I'm missing something? The numbers at the start of the Engagement section then seem slightly different again? I'm sure it does all make sense, but they all refer to slightly different groups, which makes it hard to follow and rationalise.
I think part of the problem is because I skip the light infantry, having mentioned them in the previous section. I have now included them, and the maths should be easier. Yes, the Carthaginians are down the 2,000 with Mago, but I am unsure what I can do about this if a reader has not been paying attention. (But if they haven't, I doubt they will spot a discrepancy.)
  • You probably need to establish Philip Sabin's credentials, though it will break that sentence up horribly.
Done.
  • "Eventually the strain told and the units Latin allies and Gauls on the flanks and the velites to the rear started to break up." Missing an "of" after units?
Indeed. Added.
  • "Livy retails dramatic.." "retails"? Doesn't that mean sells?
Wiktionary: "To repeat or circulate (news or rumours) to others." (And it gives quotations from 1982 and 1998.)
  • "..and another 15,000 Romans and taking 15,000 prisoner." I'm not keen on the repetition of and quickly here. Maybe you should add a comma ;)
Sorry, you have lost me here.
  • There are a few duplicate links; I imagine you might have the checking tool, but if not there is "javelin" in the first paragraph of Roman, "skirmishers" in the first paragraph of Carthaginian, "Sicily" in Aftermath, and "Publius Cornelius Scipio" in Subsequent operations. I think the repeat link for Publius Cornelius Scipio is justified, as it is a long time since he was mentioned, and many readers would be more interested in reading about him after this second mention than after the first.
Yes, the last was deliberate. The others were due to too much editing subsequent to my pre-GAN dup check. Now tidied I think.


And... that's a wrap. Harrias talk 09:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Thanks Harrias. One of your reviews feels as good as an ACR. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do me; passing. I reserve the right to come up with a whole load of new things to complain about if this hits ACR or FAC. Harrias talk 11:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Trebia/GA1&oldid=978690263"