Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Bagradas River (c. 240 BC)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2021 [1].

Battle of the Bagradas River (c. 240 BC)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A battle of some 2,261 years ago from an obscure war for which detailed sources have survived and been reasonably analysed by modern scholars. This went through GAN ten months ago and is now, I believe, in a state to be considered for FA. You may differ, so have at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 14:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The dab page Battle of the Bagradas River (and some redirects to this article) suggest that it is also known as the "Battle of the Macar". Is this a valid enough alternate name to warrant mention?
Not IMO. Gustave Flaubert had a fictional Battle of Macar in his novel (in French) Salammbô published in 1862 loosely based on this battle. Apart from Wiki-mirror sites and discussion of the novel "Battle of Macar" never comes up in the literature.
I did some searching as well after I posted the review, and I agree with you here. I can only really find this attested in Flaubert and a few stray references in the now rather dated works of Gibbon. Macar doesn't seem to be a widely accepted alternate name by any means
  • "Eventually an additional 70,000 men, according to the ancient Roman historian Polybius, although many would have been tied down in garrisoning their home towns against Carthaginian retribution." - this doesn't feel like a complete sentence
Yeah - I have added a verb. Always a handy thing to have in a sentence.
  • "They continued to restrict landward access to Carthage from their stronghold at Tunis and by establishing a force of 10,000 men in a fortified camp at the only bridge over the lower Bagradas River (the modern Medjerda River)" - Sometime feels off to me here, phrasing-wise. My guess is that either the "and" is superfluous or something is missing at the end of the sentence
Reads fine to me, but rewritten slightly to, hopefully, flow better. See what you think.
  • "Rebel losses were 6,000 killed and 2,000 captured" - Is this an estimate by Bagnall (in which case recommend attributing it to him), or is this the number found in the ancient sources?
Why attribute? Everything in the article is found in a HQ RS secondary source. Should I attribute each sentence? Miles gives "Over 8,000 of the enemy were either killed or captured", Hoyos "6,000 rebels died ... 2,000 prisoners", so it seems to be the consensus of modern scholars. (None attribute it in text.)
  • Just double checking to make sure that the chapter for Eckstein really does have the exact same title as the overall book
Of course not. Thank you. Fixed.
  • There's a typo in File:Macar240.PNG (it's instead of its), but I doubt its fixable so no action needed here
  • It's not clear what Hanno was doing during the time span of Hamilcar's force until you get to the statement "While Hanno manoeuvred against Mathos to the north near Hippo,". Can something be added further up in the article to make it clearer where Hanno was while Hamilcar was fighting at the river?
Just checking, over and above "For the rest of the year Hanno skirmished with the rebel force, repeatedly missing opportunities to bring it to battle or to place it at a disadvantage; the military historian Nigel Bagnall writes of Hanno's "incompetence as a field commander"."?

I think that's it from me. Good work, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 05:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, your points all addressed above, although I am quibbling with a couple. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive support. Sorry this review was of a somewhat lower quality, reviewing at around midnight probably isn't a great idea. Hog Farm Talk 23:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Carthage_location_2_(cropped).png: I don't think this crop does a good job of locating Carthage for readers - unless you can identify Sicily by its shape, you would not know where in the world this is, and there are no labels of either countries/islands or sea to assist
  • Suggest scaling up both battle maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for looking at this. Better? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

[edit]
  • First view is kinda strange. The title uses "circa 240 BC" while the rest of the article just use "240 BC"?
I never pay attention to titles. Especially as they are not in the FAC criteria :-) . That said, the definitive work on the chronology - "Towards a Chronology of the 'Truceless War', 241–237 B.C." by Hoyos - has it as definitely in 240 BC (p. 372). So once the FAC is over I will delete the "c.".
  • It just could be me but the lead looks a little bit short if you compare how long the article is?
I am unaware of any rules governing the length of leads. This one seems to me to meet the requirements: " It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". If you think it is too short, what information do you feel is missing from it?
Leadlength refers to the number of paragraphs, not the size of the lead. My three paragraphs fits nicely into a short - 2,500 word - article. I have expanded the third paragraph with material not related to the Battle of the Bagradas. See what you think.
  • A Carthaginian army commanded by Hanno had attempted and failed --> "A Carthaginian army commanded by Hanno II the Great had attempted and failed"?
Nope. His name was Hanno. He is the only one in the article, so I don't see that readers will become confused; if they do he is linked at first mention. No source I am aware of refers to him as Hanno II.
  • and its surrounding waters, and also in North Africa Unlink North Africa; it's too common.
Done.
  • Sicily, the Carthaginian general Hanno was leading a series Link is vague here maybe clarify which Hanno the Great he was?
In what way is the link vague? It goes to a single individual in the usual way for linking people.
  • He extended its control to Theveste (modern Tébessa, Algeria) 300 km (190 mi) south-west of their capital Km should be written fully here.
Done.
  • The Carthaginian Senate ordered the commander Link for Carthaginian Senate?
Sadly there is no such destination. Even senate doesn't have it in the list of historical senates at the end. Would you like a red link?
  • their regions of origin and sent these back to Carthage Does this mean the city or the country Carthage?
The city. Which is why I linked to the city in "and sent these back to Carthage one at a time."
  • recruited according to the ancient Roman historian Polybius Could be confusing to use Roman here while he was Greek?
Good point. I mean a Roman historian in that someone can be a "Medieval historian" while working today. But to avoid confusion, removed.
  • tied down in garrisoning their home towns against Carthaginian retribution.[12][13][14][15] Per WP:CITEBUNDLE and Help:Citation merging it's better to merge citations if there are more than three in one sentence/paragraph or remove one.
Cites spread a little more in the paragraph.
  • he took with him 100 elephants and a siege train.[22][note 1] Huh here the note is behind the citation but in this sentence "North Africa had indigenous African forest elephants at the time.[note 4][34][35]" it's before the citations. Maybe standardise them?
Standarized.
  • the army had marched 16 kilometres (10 mi) from Carthage Remove miles here and abbreviated kilometres here these units were mentioned before.
Done.
  • Both Spain and Gaul provided experienced infantry; unarmoured troops Maybe use "Iberia" instead of Spain since that was the old term at the moment?
Why not write it in 21st-century English. I mean, I don't write Roma or Africa Proconsularis or Imaziɣen. I confess that the sources are split on this, but there is not a consensus for Iberia.
  • Polybius is overlinked.
As are other links. Fixed.
  • still unable to exert any control.[46][39] Re-order the refs here.
  • Rebel losses were 6,000 killed and 2,000 captured Isn't it from small to big if we are talking about figures?
Only if giving a range. For military losses the order is killed, wounded, captured, missing.
  • the Senate agreed to payment in full Since when is payment a verb?
It's not. But agreed is.
  • attitude towards tax raising from Carthage's --> "attitude towards tax-raising from Carthage's"?
Done.
  • group attempted to prevent the those of the first from fleeing This is an odd sentence?
It reads fine to me. Give me a clue as to which bit you find odd.
Interjection from Mr rnddude: the those should just be those no? Mr rnddude (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should, it should. Thank you both. Why do I find proof reading my own work so difficult? Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • was leading a series of campaigns which greatly increased --> "was leading a series of campaigns that greatly increased"?
Done.

That's everying. Haha kinda missed our Carthaginians. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, great to see you back; you have been quiet this year. How are you keeping? Did the Carthaginians tempt you back to FAC? I am still working through your comments and will ping you once I finish? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And again CPA-5. This is like the old days. All of your comments now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5, any further come back on my responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild So did I. Haha sorry there was a liberation feeling last weekend in my home city :) Also I found this sentence "Spendius was probably with this force, still unable to exert any control.[48][41]" maybe it should re-order the refs here? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beware little citations. CPA-5 is back on patrol. Get yourselves in order or face the consequences. Done.
Cheers CPA-5, no worries and thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow. Your two recent comments both addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from Mr rnddude

[edit]
  • Referring to the IB. The rebels have 20 to 25 thousand what? Men, women, little baby goats with funny hats. It'd be good to put troops or something there.
Actually it was the baby goats. That's probably why they lost. Added.
  • Hanno stormed the rebels' camp - Don't know if you're obedient to MOS, but if you are MOS:POSS dictates that it should be s's rather than s'.
500,000 words of copy editing for GoCE made me something of a MoS anorak, but in this case it is out to lunch. I will if you insist, but no one actually says rebels's. Unless they have their mouth full.
I prefer leaving MOS compliance to the individual. MOS is a guideline not a biblical doctrine.
  • ... the army had marched 16 km from Carthage ... - You provide both metric and imperial units elsewhere, why just metric here?
Cus 16 km has already been converted once. Apparently one only does this once per distance. See CPA-5's comment on this above.
Ok.
  • ... describes to this as "a gross oversimplification". - The 'to' here is unnecessary.
Removed.
  • Both Spain and Gaul provided experienced infantry ... - This was mentioned above, but I'd note that it is inconsistent. Spain is modern, Gaul is ancient. It should also be considered that Iberia =/= Spain. Iberia = Spain & Portugal. Just as Gaul =/= France, but France, the Low countries, Switzerland, and more.
I was teasing CPA-5, who brought it up on most of my last dozen Carthaginian FACs. I follow the sources. They use Rome, Spain, Gaul, so I do too. Yeah, I understand about Portugal, but the far west of Iberia doesn't really figure in these wars; or at least, I assume the sources think that way as they use "Spain".
  • With the rebels some 500 metres (2,000 ft) away - You have a mix of full and abbreviated units. I'm not sure why the convert template does this in the article you've written as it doesn't do it elsewhere. Don't know if you can fix it so that it is consistently m/ft or metres/feet.
Ah. What one is supposed to have is the base unit unabbreviated at first mention and all others abbreviated. If you look above you will find CPA-5 ticking me off over this.
I just realized that the conv template abbreviates the units being converted to. That's what had me confused. It just seems weird to have metres/ft rather than metres/feet in the first mention. Presumably the purpose of the full form is to identify the unit for the reader. Leave it as is, cause there's nothing that can be done about that.
  • The surviving rebels fled back to whence they came. - Which was where? Carthage? If so why not just say Carthage. Or do you mean that they dispersed all over, in which case why not just say 'the surviving rebels dispersed'.
No, I mean they fled back to where they came from - those from Utica to there, those from the bridge towards the bridge. It seemed a succinct summary style.
Ok.
  • ... an attempt to bring the rebels to battle,[5] but was surrounded. - Did you intend to place the citation at the end of the clause instead of the sentence?
Yes. Eckstein only supports the sentence that far. For "but was surrounded" I am relying on Hoyos and Miles.
  • Hasdrubal in turn had existing ... - Who is this? This is the only time he's mentioned. Introduce them.
Sorry - and I can hardly believe that I proof read past that. It should be Hamilcar - now changed. (Hasdrubal was one of Hamilcar's sons, a brother to Hannibal, but I have no idea why I had him on my mind.)

Overall a well written article. There's a marked dearth of commas, but I have a habit of excessive comma use so I don't know if that's just me anticipating more of them than is needed or if there's commas missing in places. *shrug*. I also left a note above in CPAs section. Will re-read the article tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do tend to be a comma minimalist, it is how I was taught to use them. Sometimes others' articles look to me as if commas have been randomly sprinkled across them. As you say, *shrug*
Hi Mr rnddude, and thanks for dropping by with the review. All of the baby goats say thank you too and they have a hat for you. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I've seen your replies to a few questions I had. Thanks to the baby goats for the hat. I still can't believe they lost though, I would have thought that plan foolproof. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamilcar in turn had existing and future prisoners killed by being trampled to death by elephants. - I think it's unnecessary to say both 'killed' and 'to death' in the same sentence and that it could be tightened to '... had existing and future prisoners trampled to death by elephants'.
point. Done.
  • The Carthaginians and the rebels fought a fierce and bitter campaign, with the rebels being worn down before they were finally defeated at ... - Perhaps to avoid repeating 'the rebels' twice it could be rephrased to 'The Carthaginians fought a fierce and bitter campaign with the rebels, [wearing them down before their final defeat at ...|wearing them down before finally defeating them at]
Gone for a variant of this.
  • South west of ... - Is it more typical to write South-west or South west?
I believe that it is editor's choice. In support of not hyphenating I offer South Western Railway; South Western School District; South Western Highway; South Western Railway zone. These are each from a different continent - to establish common usage, including one from the US. Or South West Trains or South West Norfolk (UK Parliament constituency) or South West England (European Parliament constituency).
  • Hanno's army took over the camp and Hanno himself entered the city in triumph. - A tad repetitive as the preceding sentence starts with Hanno as well. Could replace one of the two Hanno's in this sentence with 'his' or 'he'. Actually, ten of the seventeen instances of Hanno appear in the two paragraphs of this section. Cut a few out.
Reduced to ten, other than section titles. Hanno has filed a formal complaint.

That's all I have. I've preemptively moved to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude, thank you for the support and for the further helpful suggestions, which I have responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Made some edits, feel free to revert any of them as always. All of my edits should either be technical things like a link adding, ref consolidation, or else edits where the meaning of words was not shifted, but would be too nitpicky for a comment (i.e. changing was leading to led.) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose
[edit]
  • Lede (not using subsections as this is apparently taxing for the FAC main page)
Aye, the coordinators here are a right stroppy bunch.
  • wake of the end of the First Punic War. suggest removing the end of as superfluous.
Done.
  • Spendius in 240 BC should say circa 240 BC, in line with title, no?, removing per discussion above relating to the article title.
  • who had commanded Carthaginian forces on Sicily for the last six
Re ... ?
Have entirely forgotten what the suggestion would be. Let us all assume it was a heretofore unknown level of inspired and brilliant, and now lost to time.
Like Carthage itself.
  • Once the rebels had closed the Carthaginians turned and charged them suggest changing closed to approached, unless you feel this shifts the meaning.
IMO it changes the meaning. Have changed to "drawn close,". Does that do the trick?
Good for me.
  • The rebels broke and were routed...The Carthaginians pursued, this break seems somewhat odd, suggest starting third paragraph with The rebels broke and were routed. for flow.
Then there is a break between charge and breaking, which is even odder. I have promoted "The Carthaginians pursued ..." to the second paragraph. Does that work.
Works for me.
  • The Carthaginians pursued, killing or capturing many of the rebels and taking the fortifications guarding the bridge. Hamilcar had gained the operational initiative and the freedom to manoeuvre. suggest The Carthaginians pursued, killing or capturing many of the rebels and taking the fortifications guarding the bridge, giving Hamilcar the operational initiative and the freedom to manoeuvre.
I don't have a major objection to this, although I fail to see an issue with the existing version, which I prefer. I have tweaked. See if it works for you.
Tweak works for me.
  • Hamilcar was again victorious hey I've seen this one before! Await it's FAC nom, a pleasure to review.
That was Hamilcar's victory with Naravas, which you were kind enough to review last week. You may well be seeing it here later. :-)
  • Background
  • Half of all agricultural output was taken as war tax, and the tribute previously due from all towns and cities was doubled to me at least, the wording of this seems to imply that half of the agricultural output of the new conquests were taken, while the tribute of the old conquests was merely doubled. If this is not the case, and all conquests had half of the agricultural output, suggest reordering to The tribute previously due from all towns and cities was doubled, and half of all agricultural output was taken as war tax.; alternatively, if this is meant to imply that the previous tribute included 25% of agricultural output, and this number was doubled alongside, presumably, gold, would suggest mentioning this.
Er, your first suggestion seems no less (nor more) likely to cause this confusion re tribute . I have removed "previously", which would seem to remove the possibility of misunderstanding.
  • Went to link Carthaginian Senate only to realize there is no such article... truly was Carthage destroyed.
It was ploughed under and anathematised. It is not even listed under "Defunct and unestablished senates"!
  • Mutiny
  • owed and hurried on their way home. question the usage of hurried here in this context, did he believe Carthage would hurry them home, or they would hurry home of their own accord? If Carthage, suggest be hurried, if their own accord, suggest changing to hurry to convey a change of actor from Carthage paying to people hurrying home.
I can't add "be" as it is already there - "they would be" - as part of "He anticipated they would be ... hurried on their way home." Seems clear to me, although I am notoriously poor at proof reading my own prose.
  • The pay dispute had become a full-scale revolt. The three years of war that followed are known as the Mercenary War and threatened Carthage's existence as a state. suggest The pay dispute became a full-scale revolt, leading to three years of war known as the Mercenary War, which threatened Carthage's existence as a state.
That seems to me to overload the sentence. As I read your suggestion I want to chop it into three sentences to make it more readily intelligible.
  • Prelude
  • against the superior rebel force guarding against this suggest changing against this to simply it
If I were to do that I would, IMO, need to add a sentence explaining what and where "the superior rebel force" was doing. I prefer the current summary style.
  • fordable while definitely the proper word for this, I think it might be uncommon enough for those unfamiliar with military history to justify a wikt link to wikt:fordable
Frankly this seems WP:OVERLINK gone mad, but done. (And since when was fordable a military history expression?)
By process of elimination, I would say. I don't think I've ever it outside of the context. May simply be a matter of the fact I mostly write and review MILHIST, however.
Well, eg, I do a lot of hiking and whether a stream or river is fordable - either normally or when in spate - is a relatively common topic of conversation. As is the fordability of the ford a nearby minor road goes through. Etc.
May be a language difference; in Boy Scouts and since I've always just used "crossable". Might even just be a Southern thing, for all I'm aware. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Engagement
  • In the event the "In the event" seems strange to me in this context, as it would normally (again to me) be used to set up a possibility and the result of that, rather than a description of an actual event, such as "In the event of [x], [y] would do [z]." suggest shortening to simply The.
Done.
  • scouts or outriders the meaning of outrider was not easy to find on Google (in part because of a video game of the same name, and because many of the first results of a more specific search return mentions of Warhammer units), but it seems largely synonymous with scouts unless the distinction being made is in the implication that scouts would withdraw from an enemy force, whereas the outriders would engage. If this implication is being made, suggest changing outriders to vanguards as a more accessible word, if such an implication is not being made, suggest removing or outriders and simply mentioning scouts; if outrider is a common British phrase to the point of equivalency with vanguard, and I'm just not aware of this, and the implication is being made, suggest keeping it, in line with British English of the article.
Outriders include vanguards, rearguards and flank guards, operating at a set, but usually close, distance from a main body. (As in motorcycle outriders often seen at motorcades. (As I understand it, a typically US usage.)) Scouts are groups sent some distance away - usually but not always ahead - and then reporting back. I don't see that the use of a term as a title of a game should preclude its use in its normal sense of a mounted attendant. (Eg, see Merriam-Webster for a US spin on the word.)
  • marched away suggest changing this to simply withdew
Why? (It changes the meaning.)
  • The rebels, many of whom were inexperienced soldiers given that the article states that this included many experienced veterans of the army of Sicily I would suggest changing the many to most, to imply that although many were experience, the majority were not; giving the same word is somewhat confusing, as it would seem to imply, in lack of a real third option, a 50-50 split of experience and inexperience, which does not appear to be the case. Feel free to keep many if you feel that most would substantially change the meaning, or perhaps use much, as a less intense descriptor.
"Most" is not supported by the sources, I would not wish to use "much" for a quantity which can be measured discreetly, and I fail to see why or how two manys suggests a 50:50 split; or anything other than many.
  • Hamilcar had gained the operational initiative and the freedom to manoeuvre he desired suggest As a result of the battle, Hamilcar gained the operational initiative and the freedom to manoeuvre he desired
Done.
  • Aftermath
  • and in the resulting battle they lost 10,000 killed and 4,000 captured seems slightly awkward, perhaps as in the resulting battle 10,000 were killed and 4,000 captured.
I don't like "as", but have removed "and". (Which I am guessing is what you find awkward.)
  • These are all my suggestions; a wonderful article which I believe easily meets FAC standards. No objection to any of the sources (I shall not further sully the good name of Richard Miles) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source discussion (This does not, I believe, constitute a source review, but I would stand by them if so asked)
  • Feel free to revert these as desired, but I believe I have standardized the locations as best as I am able.
  • I added the location of Chichester, West Sussex to "Eckstein, Arthur" to standardize the addition of locations to sources.
  • I have added the state of Illinois to the citation of "Jones, Archer", in line with the "City, State" format exhibited by (most of) the other sources.
  • To Hoyos, Dexter (2000) I added the main locations of the publishers in the "city ; city" format used with Hoyos, Dexter (2007); I did not double state the "Germany" as they are within the same country.
  • To Hoyos, Dexter (2007) I added the country names, changing it from "Leiden ; Boston" to "Leiden, Netherlands ; Boston, Massachusetts"
  • To Scullard, H. H. (2006) I added the county of "Cambridgeshire" so that it complies with the "City, State" (county, technically)
  • I have not modified any of the London locations, in the understanding that it follows New York in being mononymous; the ceremonial county name is London, regardless. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Edition statements shouldn't be part of the title parameter
Fixed. (I think.)
  • Eckstein: it appears that the "parts" are functioning as volumes rather than work titles - the encyclopedia itself will be the work. Also Wiley Online Library is the name of the platform, not the name of the publisher
Fixed.
It looks like the library is still being credited as the publisher, and the volume is still given as the title? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldsworthy: the version linked appears to be a different edition?
Links removed.
  • Hoyos 2000: why include location and not publisher? Neither is necessary for periodicals, but I would expect if the former is included then so would the latter
Removed.
  • Is the University of Illinois Press really in Indiana?
Apparently not. Changed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Nikkimaria. All resolved I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinnators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Ian Rose: Can I have permission to launch another? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, sorry for delay, yes go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_the_Bagradas_River_(c._240_BC)/archive1&oldid=1045033779"