Talk:Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 21:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and this article looks very nice, as always. I'll have some comments tonight and tomorrow. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's impressively swift. Thanks Eddie. Feel free to give it a good kicking. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though everyone is quietly competing to review your articles because they make such nice reading and are so well done, so I snatched it up as quickly as I could when I saw the nom... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you sweet-talking flatterer!

comments

Light c/e, feel free to disagree, I won't take it personally (I ~~can be~~ am wrong ~~sometimes~~ often)... You know the spiel by now, I should think

Yeah. Similar to my copy editing disclaimer. All looks good. Except is [[Line of communication|lines of communicatin]] a typo? Or some interesting aspect of American English? And did you mean to duplink Battle of the Aegates? If you did, that's fine.

No, communicatin is a typo and I hadn't realised it was linked above. How clumsy of me!

Is there a reason why the coords in the infobox follow so far below the location?

Not that I am aware of. It is so common that I have stopped noticing it. Eg, see Battle of the Aegates or Siege of Berwick (1333). But bizarrely I have found an example where it doesn't - Battle of the Lipari Islands. I think that it depends on whether the coordinates are given in the infobox, but that sort of thing is beyond me.

"was the nine-year long, 250 to 241 BC, Roman siege of the Carthaginian-held Sicilian" might I suggest you consider rephrasing as "lasted nine years between 250 and 241 BC, when the Romans placed (or held or put) the Carthaginian-held Sicilian..." It just reads a little choppily as it stands, with the commas so early on.

You may. Gone with a slight variant of what you wrote. There is so much emphasis to pack information into the first sentences it is difficult not make them choppy and over-stuffed.

"The Romans besieged Lilybaeum with more than 100,000 men" do we have a date in the year? if not that's fine, I just notice you earlier specify mid-250 BC.

Good spot. Dated, and some of the rest chopped around for flow. (And in one case accuracy.

)

"the Romans built a new fleet" perhaps try "the Romans rebuilt their fleet" instead

I would prefer to like this. It is a bit of a nuance, but I am trying to get across that they built an entirely new fleet from scratch, rather than rebuilding an existing one.

"probably made it inevitable" the two words seem to me to be slightly convoluted together; maybe try "made it increasingly likely" though I'm not exactly sure what meaning you're trying to convey here.

No, I want to say "inevitable", not some degree of likelihood. Can we dicuss this, as it seems as clear a sentence as there is in the article to me. (I'm not saying I'm right, rather that I am being dim.) Can you specify what you are having issues with?

I think I was tripping over the idea of the concept that something can probably be inevitable; in my mind either it is inevitable or it isn't. But, looking back on it with a rested mind, it makes fine sense to me as is.

"of Akragas (modern Agrigento; Agrigentum in Latin; captured in 262 BC) and Panormus (modern Palermo; captured in 254 BC)." perhaps link Battle of Agrigentum ~~and Battle of Panormus~~

Done.

"one consul had left Sicily" could use a name?

Why? Who cares. He has left and took no part in what is already a slightly off-topic bit of introduction.

I think it's a bit misleading to say "known as consuls, to each lead an army", which implies that the main purpose of the consuls was to lead the army; from what I remember from my Latin class (long ago), they had much more of a role in ruling. Maybe "appoint two men as consuls each year, who each led an army in wartime" Of course, if I remember from my last Punic Wars GAR, in practice war was more normal than peace in Rome. However, I think a clarification is apt.

Hmm. You may be recalling a later period. But I have no real objections. And yes, it certainly was. Tweaked along the lines you suggest.

"a strong force against Lilybaeum" maybe say instead "a large force..." because as we have often seen, just because the force is far larger doesn't mean it is 'strong'.

Changed to "large". Ian Rose has a habit of going through my FACs removing the "large"s, so I tend to pre-empively swap them out myself pre-GAN. We'll see what he makes of this one.

What's going on with the {{convert}} template for 20 metres? why does it say "20-metre -deep" rather than "20 metres deep"?

That's a good point. Ah. Adding an adjective automatically makes it singular. Apparently that's correct English. Who knew?

certainly not me...

"The Roman poet Vergil wrote of the "pitiless shoals of Lilybaeum"" maybe just a year (ex: "Vergil wrote in 2020 of the") for context for the intrepid reader?

Do I detect humour? If the use of "Roman" doesn't indicate a rough period, would "ancient Roman" do the trick?

absolutely (for Roman can refer to a very long period of time). Yeah, it was a weak attempt at making a joke... most of my humor comes from sarcasm which I've found translates great to Wikipedia and everyone understands

Done.

"The Romans attempted to mine Lilybaeum's defences, and the defenders dug counter-mines" is this part of the same initial assault or subsequent or both?

Both.

"to make good the damage to the walls and towers each night" maybe try "to capitalize upon the damage to the walls and towers" unless I'm completely mis-interpreting the meaning of 'make good' (which I am very susceptible to doing)

I have changed "make good" to 'repair'.

"most of the rank and file were made up of foreigners" maybe "most of the rank and file were foreigners"? I don't know whether you think 'made up of' is needed. Whatever you think is better

Done.

"with a view to " -> "intending to" I always prefer simple phrases over ones that I don't hear very often, so maybe and maybe not...

Ah. You have been reading the Orwell on my user page. You are quite right.

"They were betrayed in turn to Himilco" by who? one of their own? If we don't know, that's fine

Added.

"stirring speech" editorializing? can we just say ourselves the speech was stirring? I'm under the impression a quote is needed but can't definitively say, and cannot see what the source says so that's your call

Changed to "personal exhortation" which is directly from the source.

"a monetary bonus" for what? fighting bravely or just fighting or something else?

For not following their officers and betraying the city.

"The Roman navy hesitated " perhaps "The Roman navy did not" unless they followed later

Done.

"either 4,000 or 10,000 according to different sources" 4,000 or 10,00 supplies and reinforcements? pineapples? books? skis? maybe soldiers.

Sarcy! It was figs.

"laden with rocks" the ships were laden with rocks? Sunk with rocks? sunk on rocks?

They were wikt:laden with, as in loaded with, or filled with. Think bill of lading.

Ah, yes I see now...

"prevailing sea conditions they were unsuccessful" what were the prevailing sea conditions?

It would seem that a strong wind from the right direction at the right stage of the tide repeatedly broke it up. The vagueness of the secondary sources makes me suspect that the primary sources are even vaguer. Do we want to inflict this guess as to the detail on our readers?

certainly not

"his well-constructed ship" maybe just "his ship"

Sorry, left over from a longer first draft. Done.

"in the source" is the source here Polybius or Lazenby?

Typo. Should have read "sources", which it does now. Is that sufficient, or should I add 'primary'?

"One day a gale set in from the south west, which blew away the sheds protecting" maybe just "a gale from the south west blew away"

That reads well as a stand alone sentence, but, IMO, spoils the flow. I have chopped the stupid "one day" ("Once upon a time …"). Does it read better now, or still need work?

what year was the gale?

"harbour of Drepana (modern Trapani)" seems a little late in the article to introduce its modern city-- by my count Drepana has already been mentioned five times

Better late than never? No. Moved to first mention.

"Carthalo with 70 ships" maybe mention who Carthalo was, given that he has no article

Sadly we know almost nothing about him, so the introduction is rather vague. And short.

"Inconsequential fighting continued over the following eight years around Panormus and Eryx" maybe remove, given that this article is about Lilybaeum

Would that not raise the reasonable question: "So what was happening during the following seven years?"

"they would now need to be superior sailors, rather than superior soldiers, to beat the Carthaginians" seems a little fluffy to me

True. Gone.

"the Carthaginians raised a larger fleet" larger than the Romans or their previous fleets?

Than the Romans'. Rephrased to clarify.

"Lilybaeum, from where it was shipped to Carthage in stages" so the city was never surrendered except as part of the overall peace proceedings?

Correct. Reading between the lines - sadly (I use that a lot about Polybius) it is not explicitly stated - Lilybaeum was formally handed over after the last Carthaginian soldier was shipped back to Africa months after the treaty was signed.

Overall, very nice work! My comments are feeling a little worse than normal, so please be kind when responding... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear; am I not usually kind? I have tried extra hard this time. I appreciate the time and effort you put into teasing the flaws out of my screens of tosh too much to not do. All addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, perhaps I should have said 'extra kind', which I think you have certainly been. You are one of the kindest people that I have met on-wiki. On the article, your responses satisfy me on the prose. Sourcing that I can see is good and to reliable sources, no copyvio present, images are good as far as I can tell, and the article is certainly at least reasonably comprehensive. Nice work as always, and I'm happy to pass! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]