Jump to content

Talk:Punic Wars/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: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 23:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FIne. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Not a fan of cite #160 being a bare URL
Me neither! Drive by insertion a couple of days ago by a newish editor. Reverted.
  • Eckstein 2017 omits |location=, all other citations have it. Please be consistent.
Added.
  • Given how many sources you have, have you considered breaking it up into subsections like 'books', 'journals ', 'web'?
No. Personally I dislike this sort of very artificial split. Even leaving aside ambiguous cases. I don't personally see that such a split does much more than make the sources less accessible.
  • for the first image, do you want to end with some sort of punctuation (perhaps :?)
I see what you mean. In context I think not this time. But if you want it, I am not that bothered.
  • There is no explanation of Casus belli in the key though it appears in the gif. While I, with my refined latin skills know refers to the act of war, I think readers would benefit from some mention of it in the caption, if possible
Casus belli is a perfectly normal English language expression. See Wikt:casus belli. Note that it provides quotes to as recently as 2002 and 2010.
  • do you link City-state in the first sentence? I think perhaps.
"first sentence"? I link it at first mention.
I was referring to "fought by the states of Rome and Carthage". I think this makes sense only because this is the broadest-concept article, so more readers who don't really know what's what will be reading it, and the link could be useful.
I would argue that by this period neither of these entities was a city state. And notwithstanding this, that it would be misleading to so describe them.
  • " proprietary approach to the island" seems to be an odd way of saying that Carthage controlled the western half of it. I think it's particularly an odd choice of phrasing when considering that the FPW article doesn't say "proprietary" once.
I am not sure what controlling half of the island has to do with it. I am not sure what words are used in a different article have to do with it. (In case it does, it is used in other articles which have passed FAC, eg Roman withdrawal from Africa, 255 BC.)
  • "extensive maritime empire" perhaps "extensive empire and strong navy"? This will allow you to directly contrast with "weak maritime arm" later. I also think Carthage's empire is extensive without the maritime qualifier.
The sources all stress that Carthage's empire was built on its control of the sea, eg, all of its major cities were ports. I think that this is different from Carthage having a strong navy. Eg, in the 2PW Rome had the strongest navy, but this didn't make it a "maritime empire".
  • * " but a weak maritime arm" why "maritime arm" that's odd to me...
I could say navy if you prefer - but demarcations were not so clear in those days, and I was trying to indicate a wider military area than just warships. Your choice.
It's fine as is given your reasoning
  • " and also in North Africa, Corsica and Sardinia" you omit "corsica and sardinia" in the FPW article. They should be linked regardless.
Linked.
  • "By the terms of the peace treaty agreed " I don't think 'agreed' is needed or fits well here.
Removed.
Good spots. I have linked the first; the second I have gone with Roman province.
  • "major but unsuccessful revolt within the Carthaginian Empire" link and name Mercenary War?
Done.
  • "The Second Punic War began in 218 BC" why? you talk about the cause of the FPW. If memory serves, a simple "in Iberia" will suffice.
I am not adverse in principle to putting something on the cause, but IMO "in Iberia" is over simplistic. I shall give some thought to a succinct description.
Done, although there is a bit of a wall of blue.
Apt for the carthaginian's given their maritime basis, I suppose.
  • "and in North Africa" already mentioned above, should be linked there.
Done.
  • "The successful Roman invasion of the Carthaginian homeland in Africa" link?
To what?
Bad on me for assuming we had an article on Scipio's broad invasion
  • "but after 14 years the survivors withdrew" 1) cut 'survivors'? Of course when they withdrew they were survivors.
Not to state "survivors" means that all of them withdrew, which wasn't (obviously) the case.

2) is this the same time as when Hannibal was recalled? That should be specified as the reason if so.

Next sentence but one: "The successful Roman invasion of the Carthaginian homeland in Africa in 204 BC led to Hannibal's recall."
Done.
  • "centred around the Siege of Carthage" I'd favor "consisted of the" if that is accurate
consisted of and centered around mean different things, and the former is not accurate.
  • Check for duplicate links please. You will find there are many.
Done. I think. Scipio Aemilianus is deliberately dup linked.
I still see dups of Syracuse and Sicily. Was going to mention that Scipio should stay dup linked, but you got it anyways
Drat. Apologies. Caught.
  • "sacked it, slaughtered most of its population and completely demolished it" any way you can eliminate the repetition of 'it' three times?
Probably; but I wrote it that way deliberately. Repetition isn't necessarily bad.

That's the first wave, I'm through 'primary sources'. Very minor stuff generally, as always. Most of the comments are probably minor/subjective. Comments will be coming in bursts and sporadically. As my high school latin teacher was fond of saying, "How do you eat an elephant?" "one bite at a time". Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you say that in Latin?
  • "by 272 BC," Our article on the Pyrrhic War, while awful, suggests an end date of 275 BC.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I think it depends on how you define "Pyrrhic War". To avoid the issue I have replaced "at" with "after".
  • " During this period" Unclear whether you mean just during the PYrrhic war or the whole period of Roman expansion
Clarified.
I don't establish to any greater, or lesser, degree the relevance of most of the background. It is background. However, a little later in the background I state "Carthage's proprietary approach to Sicily caused the two powers to stumble into war" - the earlier comments set the background for this. (Or, at least, are intended to.)
Didn't realize that the wars ended in 265 BC-- to me, a series of wars implies a much shorter span. Could you add a second sentence along the lines of "when the wars ended in 265 BC, Carthage was a dominant power on the island" or something?
Done.
  • "in a military and commercial empire" what does this add to the article?
Removed.
I have no issue with changing "asserted", but I don't feel that "codified" accurately describes what they were doing.
Yeah could you change asserted? That's mainly what I was gettingat
"declared".
  • ". Relationships were good, with strong commercial links" 'relations were good' should go before 'the two states had several times asserted...'
Done.

and 'with strong commercial links' feels like it's missing something, though I need more time to think about what

  • "In 264 BC Carthage and Rome went to war" you go very abruptly from them being in good relations to being at war. I feel as though there's something missing.
It was very abrupt. Whole book have been written on why and how the war started - mostly based on little evidence and coming to little if any consensus. The actual "stated" reason was petty and almost certainly a thin excuse; so it seemed best to briefly detail the situation either side and use summary style. Let me know if you would like to discuss this further.
Yeah, if it was abrupt and you cannot fit anything else in without losing summary style, it's fine. People looking for more detail can go elsewhere

through background

[edit]
  • "would serve as infantry" would serve when? During the FPW? During all of the PW's? During peacetime?
All of the above. Or, more strictly, when "eligible for military service".
  • I think we've had this discussion before, but do you want to pipe to "Equites" at " a better-off minority providing a cavalry component"?
We have; I do; sorry. Done.

Also not sure, but my mind wants it to read "with a... providing" or "and/while ... provided". This might be an american english or Eddie english thing though

"with" inserted.
  • our article on Velites says they were a class in the Roman army from 211 to 107 BC which, according to my BC math, means they didn't exist at the beginning of the FPW?
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. My RSs are explicit. One could have lots of OR debate around this, but I have been careful to cite to a very clear and very reliable source.
Not without creating an easter egg. Why would you like it including?
  • "known as consuls, to each lead an army known as consuls, to each lead an army" could you clarify that this wasn't their only responsibility?
Done.
  • Can you somewhere in 'armies' actually compare the size of the two armies, or at least the population who could serve in them? Alternatively, adding the populations of Rome and Carthage to 'background' would work
I could debate this at length, but I really think, and several sources agree, that this is a flawed approach. Eg the Carthaginians hired foreigners to fight - soo their manpower pool was the population of the world. And financial constraints were stronger than manpower ones - if less tangible at this distance. Eg, the Romans once lost 150,000 men killed in c. 12 months in the 1PW and rebuilt and were attacking the following year. Or Cannae ended a c. 20 month period in which the Romans lost killed, and captured c. 125,000 soldiers. Again, they just rebuilt. For practical purposes, both sides possessed infinite manpower resources. (That last bit is verging into OR.)
  • " direct threat to the city" to the city or to the empire?
the city, as it says. (I could change to 'Carthaginian citizens only served in their army if there was a direct threat to the city of Carthage', making it clearer, but repetitous.
  • "although they" maybe "their soldiers" or "the soldiers"?
Happy to clarify, but your two suugestions would be ungrammatical. "they" are the "Carthaginian citizens".
  • You say "Many would be from" but then "Both Iberia and Gaul provided". I'd expect "were from" and "provided" or "would be from" and "would provide" since they are comparable
Good spot. Made consistent.
  • "would wear captured Roman armour, especially among Hannibal's troops" what's the relevance of this? 1) why would they do it and 2) why does it merit a mention here?
What's the relevance of any of it. How the troops of each side were equipped seems relevant in an article on a war.
  • "Garrison duty and land blockades were the most common operations" split the paragraph here if you are talking about both armies, it's unclear to me whether this just refers to carthage or includes Rome
Apologies. It was meant to be split there.
  • one to seven miles apart (2–12 km)" -> " one to seven miles (2–12 km) apart"?
Done.
  • can you link somewhere for "battle order"?
Not that I have ever been able to find. If you know of one I would be grateful to hear of it. (Battle line is the closest I have come, and that is clearly not appropriate.)
  • " if the other commander was unwilling to fight" ...suggesting that it wasn't "If neither commander could see an advantage" but more along the lines of "If either commander couldn't see an advantage"?
Oh, very good. I got tied up there. Clarified. I think.
  • "In such circumstances " in what circumstances, specifically? It's unclear to me
Reworded. Clearer?
  • "In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet" so did they have a fleet at all before?
In brief, no. I edited out "on the few occasions they had previously felt the need for a naval presence they had relied on small squadrons provided by their allies" for summary style. I cut put it back in if you feel the extra words worth the extra information.
  • "This allowed Roman legionaries acting as marines to board enemy ships and capture them, rather than employing the previously traditional tactic of ramming." and didn't this also serve to take advantage of Rome's superior skill when it came to close-quarters fighting, or am I imagining things here?
If there is an RS stating that Romans had such superior skills (there may well be), then yes, it would.
War In World History: Society, Technology, and War from Ancient Times to the Present, Volume 1 says "The corvus allowed the Roman fleet to maximize its advantage in the quality and quantity of its fighting men" but I'm not convinced by that publisher alone. Hannibal: A Hellenistic Life and others imply it was more that the Romans overwhelmed the other ship than out-classed it with soldiers. Regardless, I think it's best as it currently stands.
  • "All warships were equipped with rams" I think the first part of this paragraph would fit better chronologically above the preceding paragraph.
If that means what it seems to, it would IMO fit so badly that I must be mistaking your meaning. Could you restate just what you think might be moved to where?
Nope, I got no clue what I was talking about here. Huh... Eddie891 Talk Work 18:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

through 'Opposing forces'

[edit]
  • I don't believe you ever actually outlined carthage's state of authority on Sicily?
We now have "By 264 BC Carthage was the dominant external power on the island" in Background and origin; is that sufficient?
  • The image captioned "Sicily, the main theatre of the First Punic War" clearly depicts more than just that.
Erm. It also depicts a tiny bit of the toe of Italy, and a handful of small nearby islands which are commonly counted as part of Sicily. Do you think that a reader might be confused?
I meant the little icons that are 'crossed swords' and maybe 'camera on fire'.
Ah. I shall ask an editor who knows about maps if they could have a look at that.
  • " selling 25,000" out of how many?
The sources don't say. The implication is this was all of them. But the primary sources don't make this explicit.
  • "The land war on Sicily reached a stalemate" year?
How about "after this"; ie making it clear that this is after 262 BC.
Looks good
  • " the base on Corsica was then lost" It's gotten too convoluted for my simple mind. Can you clarify here who lost the base this time around?
Tut, tut; concentrate. Clarified.
Yes. Clarified.
  • (modern Palermo) reminds me of La Casa de Papel... Great show
  • " to complete their defeat" unclear to me who 'they' is here?
Really? "The elephants routed through the Carthaginian infantry, who were then charged by the Roman infantry to complete their defeat" The guys being "charged by the Roman infantry".
  • " in 249 BC they besieged" Yet unless I'm mistaken, Lilybaeum was besieged in 250...
You are absolutely correct. I have no idea how that crept in.
Done.

Through FPW. I'm giving you a very in-depth treatment-- I can review it to GA criteria with many fewer comments if you want (but they'll come out at FAC anyways!). Just let me know, not trying to be too nit-picky. That's it for the night... Eddie891 Talk Work 01:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. This level is great. It is headed for FAC, so let us get the bugs out now. One of the things I appreciate about you as reviewer is that you can be challenging and nit picky as a reviewer without getting too committed to a point of view and always having an open mind to a response.
I am going to be out of commission for 2-3 days. I haven't read your response above nor your comments below yet. I shall deal with them when I return. Meanwhile, many thanks for your good work so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Wikipedia should still be here when you get back. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interbellum

[edit]
  • "under the leadership of Spendius and Matho" unclear to me who Matho and Spendius were leading, the revolters or carthage?
I am struggling to see how I could make "This erupted into full-scale mutiny under the leadership of Spendius and Matho" any clearer. Any suggestions? I could replace "this" with 'the dispute', but that seems repititious to me.
  • " flocked to join them" Again, I think you could clarify who 'them' is?
"them" replaced with 'mutineers', but I am half expecting this to now get picked up for repetition.
  • "Weakened by 30 years of war," but wasn't Rome weakened to the same extent?
Rome had won; had gained a rich province; was receiving reparations not paying them; had not just fought a debilitating civil war.
  • "These events fuelled resentment" perhaps resentment of Rome?
Done.
  • "has been considered" by who?
rephrased.
  • " if it were to again confront Rome" and why would it want to do that?
Cus of the resentment fuelled. And cus in those days everyone went to war with all their neighbours on a regular basis. (Seriously.)
  • "and then his son, Hannibal," unclear who 'his' refers to here
I am going to dig heels in on this one - it seems completely clear to me.
  • "specifying the Ebro River" before you say "Arno River", I think it's worth standardizing between the two
Done.
  • "A little later Rome made " can you specify 1) why this treaty matters
I feel that I already do "A little later Rome made a separate treaty with the city of Saguntum ... a Carthaginian army under Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum and ... Rome declared war on Carthage".

and 2) what 'a little' means here?

Clarified.

SPW

[edit]
  • Don't think you need 'further information: Siege of Saguntum'
Removed.
Cus in previous sentence (in previous section) "Rome made a separate treaty with the city of Saguntum".
  • "which they besieged" who held it before and who was doing the besieging?
Ah, yes; clarified.
  • "An army had been created to campaign in Iberia" would benefit from clarifying earlier that the army was Roman
Another good point. Clarified.
  • " Raising fresh troops to replace these delayed the army's departure for Iberia until September" so how much of a delay was that? Like a month or more like six?
The sources say not. I could have a damn good OR guess, but it would be OR.
  • "along the coast " -> "along the Iberian coast"?
Done.
No it doesn't, although I agree that the current title is ungrammatical.
  • " Hannibal arrived with 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and an unknown number of elephants – the survivors of the 37 with which he left Iberia" 1) I seem to remember something about Gauls joining Hannibal as he traveled-- is there any substance to that? and 2) I'd mention the 37 elephants before, when you talk about "Hannibal assembled a Carthaginian army" so here you can just say "and an unknown number of elephants". I just think that caveat about him leaving w 37 elephants really throws the flow off
There is no place I can see to insert it which wouldn't throw the flow off more. Without listing the full' force with which he left Iberia, which I consider would be going into unnecessary detail.
Done.
  • " As a result, most of the" more as a result of the Romans being defeated or the hostile tribe being captured or simmering resentment being able to be expressed? If the last, i think that could be clarified
That may have been a contributing factor, but the sources I have accessed simply have it as a result of Ticinis.
  • " to cut their way to safety" seems to be an odd way of saying it, and I think it should be "Only around 10,000" or something bc there's some uncertainty right?
cut their way to safety seems a precise description to me. Have a look at the last paragraph of the Engagement section of Battle of the Trebia.
No uncertainty that I am aware of. The primary sources both say 10,000; the consensus of secondary sources is 10,000; I entirely take your point, but it would be OR so far as I can see.
  • "Gauls now joined Hannibal's army in large numbers," but actually the same amount as before? My math shows 20k joining the first 'round' and another 20k this time-- not exactly them joining in any greater numbers now?
Check your maths: 14,000 first time; 20,000 the second. I tend to agree, but all of the sources have some variety of this wording.
  • " and one on the" perhaps "and another on the"?
What's wrong with "an army at XXX and one on the YYY"?
  • "killing Flaminius and another 15,000 Romans and taking 15,000 prisoner." perhaps "killing 15,000 Romans, including Flaminius, and taking 15,000 prisoner."?
Much better. Done.
  • "were also engaged and wiped out" during the same battle?
The next day. (Same day the final 6,000 from the first army surrendered.)
  • "and Italic city states" well, weren't all Italian city states Italic? So why would he have to go south?
Nope. Excluding any Gallic ones in the north they were, to simplify a little, either Latin (mostly loyal to Rome) which included Rome itself, Italic (like the Samnites, or Greek. The last two were much less loyal to Rome.
  • " nor the Roman elite" I'd go with "or the Roman elite"
Done.
  • "At least 67,500 Romans were killed or captured." and how many survived?
Who cares? I mean, whether 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 survivors, what does it matter? The point, in this summary of 45 years of war, is the number killed.
  • "However, the majority of Rome's allies remained loyal, including many in southern Italy" to me this reads directly in contrast to "By 214 BC the bulk of southern Italy had turned against Rome" above
I really don't see this. Could you be more precise as to what you feel contradicts what?
  • "used to reinforce the Carthaginian" it's not clear who did the reinforcing, the city, carthage, or somebody else?
Umm; the Carthaginians reinforced the Carthaginian army. Er, who else? It would surely look a bit odd to specify this.
  • "This was insufficient to challenge Hannibal's army in open battle, " well how big was hannibals army?

It varied over time for a variety of reasons. But given that 86,000 Romans in a single force got chopped up at Cannae, I am not sure what would have been big enough. 20,000 certainly wasn't.

  • "thus initiating the First Macedonian War" so where was this war waged? If not in Italy, why would the romans have bothered to fight at all
Macedonia - hence the name. I could quote the entire article, but usually the Wikilink is considered sufficient.
  • " the old tyrant of Syracuse " strange way of phrasing it. Perhaps "long-time" or something in place of 'old'
He was 93. How would you feel about 'elderly'? I have added "of forty-five-years standing".
  • "the main Carthaginian stronghold on the island" yet I thought the Romans held firm control? How could there be a carthaginian stronghold?
Cus "A large Carthaginian army ... captured several Roman-garrisoned towns on Sicily".
  • " and the Sicilian grain supply to Rome " 1) since when was it halted 2) why does this matter?
Since "Syracuse came over to Carthage" and "A large Carthaginian army ... captured several Roman-garrisoned towns on Sicily".
It was a major food source for both the city of Rome and the Roman army; especially with Hannibal devastating the country side, much of Italy going over to the Carthaginians and so many small farmers joining the army. This would be difficult to source but more importantly seems to be getting a bit off topic. I could delete this detail?
  • "Spanish army (see below)" try "(see § Iberia below) or something
Thanks. Done.
  • " the Scipios split their forces." who now?
Thanks. Left from an earlier version. Removed.
  • " brought over reinforcements" unclear who he brought reinforcements to?
"Roman" inserted.
  • Captions are seemingly inconsistently centered/not.
Fixed.
  • "of the legions in Sicily" -> "of Roman legions"
Seems unnecessary to me; only the Romans (ever) had legions.

also which Scipio is refered to here?

Specified.
  • "Numidian prince Masinissa" what makes him a prince but Syphax a king? our article on him uses 'prince' 0 times
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Is the use of "prince" cited? But a good spot, thanks; a consensus of the sources refer to both as "king". But, I only refer to Masinissa as a prince before he was a king and when he was disinherited. (I later comment "Masinissa seized most of his kingdom".)
  • "After the second of these Syphax was pursued and taken prisoner" by who?
Good point. Added. Also a bit of tidying up for flow.
  • "and Carthage recalled Hannibal from Italy" why, if they were in peace negotiations, was he recalled, seemingly to help fight?

finis

[edit]
As used 6,000,000+ times according to Google.
D'oh! we've had this discussion before I think *facepalms*
  • "The campaign ended in disaster" for who?
Clarified.
  • "Carthage had paid off its indemnity" by when?
"was to be paid over 50 years" "it was accepted in spring 201 BC"; so in 150 BC.
  • "Vast amounts of materiel delivered" "were delivered"? add "by the carthaginians"?
"were" added
I think that who was doing the delivering is clear from the immediately preceding "the Carthaginians must hand over all of their armaments".
  • "Hasdrubal had them too put to death"
Why? It is factually accurate and its omission messes up the flow to the extent that I would want to rewrite both sentences if it were to go.
  • "firing the buildings behind them" perhaps "burning the buildings"?
Technically people don't burn buildings; they fire them - or set fire to them if you prefer set fire to them. They then proceed to burn. If you don't like (the technically correct) "firing", how about 'setting fire to'?
  • "Temple of Eshmoun " In the city? link Eshmun?
D'oh! Done.

That's the first pass, probably the vast majority of my comments. I'll take a breath and break here. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie891. That would have been a thorough review at FAC, and is superlative for GAN. Thank you. All of your comments are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly images

[edit]
  • I guess I need to give the reader more credit-- I'll try to give a bit more leeway wrt assuming they can piece together who 'they' refers to perhaps more often in the future
It's subjective, and there is always room for reasonable disagreement; I probably tend a bit too much towards "the reader will work it out".
  • The key of File:Campagna africana di Scipione 204-203 aC.png is not in english?
True. Map removed until I can get assistance and see if it can be changed.
  • Nice GIF in the intro
Thank you. The credit goes to User:Agata brr.
  • what part of File:Dislocazione legioni 213 aC (cropped).png is showing the Roman legions? What do the other symbols mean?
Removed. On reflection it is probably over complicated at this level.
  • If File:Mommsen p265 (cropped).jpg was created (copyrighted) in 1932, how does {{PD-old-100-1923}} apply?
Because I can't count? I probably brainlessly copied over the original work tag! Nice spot.
So, establishing the date of death of the photographer turns out to be tricky, so I have switched to an image where I know that the licensing is sound.

Sourcing

[edit]
  • What makes Ripley, George; Dana, Charles A. (1858–1863). "Carthage". The New American Cyclopædia: a Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge. 4. New York: D. Appleton. p. 497. OCLC 1173144180. Retrieved 29 July 2020 a reliable source?
It doesn't need to be as I am only using it to quote itself.
I don't see any value that it adds here, there's nothing being quoted in the article text that I see...
Resourced.
"Spotcheck"
  • 22: I don't see any mention of "arno" and Bagnall suggests that they controlled the whole peninsula by 270, I don't see 272
  • 43: Green tickY
  • Just learned that the edition of Bagnall I have is not the same year edition, which explains why they don't line up perfectly *facepalms*. Let's try this again...
    • 14: Green tickY
    • 125: I think page 378 is what you're looking for, please double check.
No. Half way down p. 377 "... decisive Punic victory and the collapse of the rebellion ..."
    • 252: Green tickY
    • 173: Green tickY
    • 3: Green tickY the page indicates it's not completely lost, but fragments remain?
Shutt means that the original work is completely lost, but fragments remain as quotations etc in later historians' works. But I can see that he hasn't said that in a way completely clear to a lay reader so I have tweaked the article.
    • 57: Green tickY
    • 89a: source doesn't explain the context of the battle, I don't think ("The Romans sent a fleet to evacuate their survivors ")
D'oh! That's because it should refer to Tipps 2003, not Tipps 1985! Sometimes I despair of myself. Thanks Eddie. Fixed.
    • 260: I don't see "Rome still exists as the capital of Italy"
Umm. Do you consider that this is a "counter-intuitive or controversial statement that [is] challenged or likely to be challenged"?
I wouldn't consider most of statements in this article "counter-intuitive or controversial" or "challenged or likely to be challenged" but they are still sourced. See WP:BURDEN, All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I subscribe to the school of thought that Just because something appears obvious to you, doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone, but won't hinge the passing/failing on this issue if you really don't want to cite it.
LOL. Tying Rome's continuing existence as the capital of Italy to a RS shouldn't be a challenge. I don't believe it necessary to meet either the GAN or FAC criteria, but it would be a silly thing to disagree over.
    • or " lie 16 kilometres (10 mi) east"
Annoyingly neither can I; rather than keep looking, I have resourced it. (To Goldsworthy.)

Admittedly, not a thorough as I'd like, but sources seem to be very reliable and for the vast majority of instances line up perfectly, if the spotcheck is to be trusted. AGF'ing for offline sources. This really is it, I promise. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie891. I am back from holiday and have been pecking away at your image and source comments. I will ping when I (think I) have finished. Is there anything above "Mostly images" still outstanding? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891: I think (hope) that that is everything now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phew. That has got to be the toughest GAN I have ever been through. Thanks Eddie, you gave it everything. Should leave me with not too much to do to get it ready for a run at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Punic_Wars/GA1&oldid=980858154"