Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War)/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) 20:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll grab this one too. Harrias talk 20:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • Include the full publication date for new sources, so Fakhri, Habib should list 5 February 1985.
Done.
  • Purcell, Nicholas (1995): fill out the page range per MOS: pp. 133–148.
They seem to be there. I assume that I picked this up since you noted it.
It currently has "133–48", rather than "133–148". Sorry, I should have explained that better. Harrias talk 12:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's generous, but I know this stuff - I should have looked harder. (I am a little under the weather. Hopefully not post-holiday Covid!)
If my experience is anything to go by, more likely post-holiday 'eugh, I ate too much crap'. Whatever it is, hopefully it passes soon. Harrias talk 15:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any logical reason Shutt, Rowland (1938) has a DOI and Scullard, Howard (1955) from the same journal doesn't?
Cus some drive by editor randomly adds them. I never use DOIs and have removed them.
  • The alphabetical order gets a bit lost: Ripley, Scullard (1955), Shutt, Sidwell, Scullard (2002), Scullard (2006), Tipps.
That's how the alphabet works in Derbyshire. Tweaked to fit your preferences.
  • Tipps, G.K. (1985): per MOS:INITIALS the initials should probably be spaced out: Tipps, G. K.
Done.
  • "Archaeological Site of Carthage": No need to list "UNESCO" as both work and publisher. In this case, just listing them as publisher is sufficient.
Done.
  • Walbank, F.W. (1990): per MOS:INITIALS the initials should probably be spaced out: Walbank, F. W.
Done.
  • Whittaker, C. R. (1996): fill out the page range per MOS: pp. 595–596. (It is allowable for consecutive pages, but let's stick to a nice consistent format.)
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.

Image

[edit]
  • All images are appropriately tagged and captioned, though it is a bit odd that some have the caption centralised, and others don't.
All now centred.
If it is not too much trouble, that would be great.

Prose review to follow. Harrias talk 20:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eugh, I though I had actually done the prose review on this already, I had it noted as being "on hold". Idiot. Will get to it. Harrias talk 18:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I am only just back from holiday and am struggling to catch up with RL and Wikipedia backlogs. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
  • Given that this battle involves Scipio Aemilianus, might it be worth quoting Goldsworthy: "His association with Scipio Aemilianus did result in a very favourable depiction of the role played by his relatives in the conflict.", or at least making it more explicit?
Very good point. No relatives involved in this siege. Tweaked to flag up favourable treatment of Aemilianus.
  • Could you blend notes 3 and 4; having them together but separate seems odd, and breaks up the text.
Good point. Done.
Censorinus. (Thumb finger followed by cut and paste.) Fixed.
  • "Our sources have Scipio.." Really, "Our sources"?
'My'? OK, 'The primary'. (Not sure what happened there.)
  • "evocation" either needs a {{lang}} template, or no italics at all.
Done.
  • {{lang}} for "agnomen".
Done.
  • "The formally Carthaginian territories.." formally or formerly? (Could conceivably be either, just checking you intended what you wrote.)
Nah. Thanks. Either my spellchecker or illiteracy.

Hmm, that seems to be less than usual: either I'm getting sloppy, or you're getting good at this! Anyway, that seems to be the lot, I'll stick it on hold. Harrias talk 11:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I am adding the things you routinely check to my pre-nom list. If I had remembered to add check lang templates - which I should - you would have had almost nothing in the prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: And I think that that is everything done. Many thanks for picking this one up. (No response from SV, despite my pinging. I am unsure how to handle that.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, this easily passes the GA criteria now. I'll sort the image out when I get a chance: I've got too many windows and tabs open at the moment for my computer to want to do much of anything. Good luck with SV! Did I mention that I got a new job? Start on Thursday, so I might go quiet for a bit while I get to grips with it. Harrias talk 15:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Carthage_(Third_Punic_War)/GA1&oldid=980971882"