Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Trebia/archive1

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) 15 April 2023 [1].

---

Battle of the Trebia

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Another article on a battle from the Second Punic War. Yes, I am getting a bit fixated on these; I will probably get bored soon and do something different. Meanwhile, here is Hannibal's first pitched battle against the Romans. A mid-winter battle against an over-confident Roman general turned out about how you might expect. I took the article through GAN in 2020 and have been doing bits and pieces to it since. In particular Harrias has just completed a beautiful set of maps illustrating how the fighting went. Hopefully it is up to FAC-standard, but in respect of any areas where it is not, please let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:2018_05_11_Rivalta_Trebbia,_mémorial_bataille_de_la_Trebbia.jpg is missing a tag for the original work

Removed.

• File:Map_of_Rome_and_Carthage_at_the_start_of_the_Second_Punic_War_Modified.svg: see MOS:COLOUR
• File:Mommsen_p265_(cropped).jpg is missing a US tag and author date of death for the photo

Swapped.

• File:Balearic_Slinger.jpg: what is the basis for the accuracy of this illustration?

That's a really good question, and one I feared I wouldn't be able to answer to a HQ standard. But I got lucky and found it in the third source I checked. Added.

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead

• "...which encouraged it to resist future Roman demands" Would "enabled" be more appropriate here, or is that not accurate? I just find the usage of the word "encouraged" strange here.

While I am not wedded to it, "encouraged" seems to me to capture the nuance fairly precisely. "enabled": well, one is always able to resist, it is really a question of how sensible or realistic that is.

• "Hannibal left his brother Hasdrubal Barca in charge of Carthaginian interests in Iberia" Was Hasdrubal Barca given any title/position at this time?

Not that we know of.

• Not sure if it is just me, but the following sentence reads weirdly: "The Carthaginians needed to obtain supplies of food, as they had exhausted theirs during their journey, and obtain allies among the north-Italian Gallic tribes from which they could recruit, in order to build up their army to a size which would enable it to effectively take on the Romans"

Not sure I get it, but I have recast as 'The Carthaginians needed to obtain supplies of food, as they had exhausted theirs during their journey. They also wanted to obtain allies among the north-Italian Gallic tribes from which they could recruit, in order to build up their army to a size which would enable it to effectively take on the Romans.' Is that better?

Yes.

• Is " valley of the Po" Po Valley? If so, I would link.

It is. Done. Ta.

• "Hannibal is reported to have stressed to his troops that they had to win..." Do we know according to whom?

We do. But in Wikipedia it is usual to put accepted facts in Wikipedia's voice and cite them, rather than attribute everything in line. Where there are differences of opinion, especially when there is no consensus at all, one might name the modern sources in line. (Quotations have a different rule again.)

• Perhaps it is appropriate, but Scipio Africanus is linked twice.

It is deliberate. The MoS says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers ...". Rather than expect readers to recall the first passing mention early in the article, or to labour the point in line, it seemed one of those rare occasions to invoke "generally". Happy to debate other approaches and/or changing it.

• File:Sacred Band cavalryman.png does not have alt text.

How odd. I thought I had cut and pasted it. Done. Thank you. Well spotted.

• Neither does File:Relieve de Osuna (M.A.N. Madrid) 03.jpg.

It also has px not "upright". I have had a bad day there. Thank you again. Sorted.

More comments to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Rome's other consul, Sempronius Longus, was meanwhile assembling an army in western Sicily, with which it was planned to invade Africa the following year.[25] Shocked by Hannibal's arrival and Scipio's setback, the Senate ordered this army to move north to assist Scipio." Sounds like by this time, the army had been in the making for quite some time, which makes me wonder if the first sentence should read: "Rome's other consul, Sempronius Longus, had been meanwhile assembling an army in western Sicily..."

Quite right. Tweaked.

• "...Hannibal came to believe some of the Gauls in the immediate area were communicating with the Romans" Why did he think that?

We don't really know. Using Goldsworthy purely as an example "Hannibal became suspicious .. Perhaps the Gauls were genuinely duplicitous ... [perhaps] different leaders had approached each side."

• "when the new consuls took up their positions" As this phrase refers to a future event, I would suggest "when the new consuls would take up their positions"

Good point. Done.

• "...especially among the troops of the Carthaginian general Hannibal" Since Hannibal has been mentioned numerous times before in this article, I would delete "the Carthaginian general".

Very tactful. Done.

• Link Balearic Islands?

Again. D'oh!

• "In addition there were an unknown number of elephants – the survivors of the 37 with which he had left Iberia" This has previously been mentioned above in the Carthage invades Italy section. I would pick one location to have this information.

Ho hum. I take your point, but also feel it needs mentioning in both places. I mean, I mention the number of infantry and cavalry in both and you haven't objected. Let me think on't.

Ok. I have tweaked both, to avoid the obvious repetition. See what you think.

• "The Romans were met by the Carthaginian light infantry; behind them the entire Carthaginian army forming up for battle" The grammar in the second phrase sounds off to me; maybe add "was" before "forming", or replaced "forming" with "formed".

You are correct, it is. Fixed.

• "Richard Miles says that "many" not in this group were killed;[93] although Nigel Bagnall writes that this was only a minority of the Roman cavalry.[94]" Why the "although"? These ideas do not seem to contrast to me.

They do to me, but the although is entirely optional and so pouf!

A wonderful (and surprisingly comma-filled, I might add) effort.

Thank you. Logically that would suggest that either I am using more commas, or ...

Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

A prompt and helpful review. Thank you. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, Gog. I'll support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Support by Cplakidas

Goodie, another Punic Wars battle! Reserving a spot here for the following days. Constantine ✍ 10:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Lede

• As the reader may not know whose side the Numidians were on, and this was a deliberate stratagem, perhaps 'Hannibal used his Numidian cavalry to lure the Romans out of their camp and onto ground of his choosing'?

Good point. Done.

• Perhaps it should be mentioned that both armies were about evenly matched in numbers, and what these were (ca. 40,000, and that the Romans had more infantry and the Carthaginians cavalry)? The Carthaginians are mentioned to have grown to 60,000 after the battle, but no numbers are provided for the battle itself.

Done.

• Devil's advocate mode: why is the opinion of Toni Ñaco del Hoyo important enough to be singled out in the lede? If this is the common view, then I think it can be stated as such without attribution.

Ho hum. Trapped by MOS:QUOTE. I have tweaked it.

Background

• ruled by the Barcids 'ruled by his family, the Barcids'?

Done.

• Hamilcar ruled as viceroy 'Hamilcar ruled Iberia as viceroy'

Looks like repetition of the previous paragraph to me, but done.

• It was the long-standing Roman procedure to elect two men each year, known as consuls, to each lead an army this gives the impression that the consuls were purely military leaders. Perhaps 'It was the long-standing Roman procedure for the two supreme magistrates, the consuls, to each lead an army in times of war.' or similar? This would also remove the need to explain it again later on.

Sorry. I am not sure how that slipped and gor overlooked. you are quite right. Corrected.

• the survivors of the 37 war elephants do we have numbers here? From memory it was a handful that survived.

Grr. That took my nine sources to get a number. Finally found one in a book on Cannae! "thirty or so". Added.

My memory was not that good, it seems, but thanks for chasing this down.

• Could the founding of Placentia and Cremona be mentioned as an example in the 'War in Cisalpine Gaul' section above? This would obviate the need for a footnote.

Oops. Missed one. Done.

• Devil's advocate mode: why is a depiction from 1891 relevant or even accurate, given that the state of knowledge about arms and armament back then was vastly inferior to today?

There is a severe dearth of appropriate PD images. And it is accurate enough; its originator seems to be drawing on the same accounts in Polybius that a modern illustrator would.

Fair enough. To my eye it also looks fairly correct, but I had to ask.

• imagined victory 'anticipated victory'?

Why? I don't have a real issue, but the current wording seems to capture the nuance better.

Opposing forces

• Introduce and link Polybius and Livy

Apologies. I forgot that I removed the "Primary sources" section. Done.

• There's a mixture of 'close order infantry/cavalry' and 'close-order infantry/cavalry'. I think the latter is correct?

It is. Fixed.

• The citizen militia is mentioned, but it is emphasized that these did not go on overseas campaigns. If a citizen phalanx did not fight at Trebia, I would remove mention of it.

I have removed details of their weapons etc, but I think it reasonable to explain why virtually no Carthaginian citizens were in the Carthaginian army, unlike the Roman situation.

Sorry, I did not mean remove them entirely. I agree they should be mentioned, but yes, the details about them were unnecessary and possibly confusing since they might be construed as contradicting their absence in the battle. Perhaps also remove and the citizen-militia both as well?

Whoopsie. Thank you.

• There are some duplinks: velites and Publius Cornelius Scipio

Velites fixed. Scipio is deliberate. The MoS says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers ...". Rather than expect readers to recall the first passing mention early in the article, or to labour the point in line, it seemed one of those rare occasions to invoke "generally". Happy to debate other approaches and/or changing it.

No worries, I agree with your reasoning, and for these things I tend to give the author considerable latitude. MOS should not be a straitjacket.

• [[Iberians|Iberia]] is a bit easter-eggy... I expect to see the territory, not its people. It is also unnecessary, since 'Iberians' is mentioned soon after.

Fixed.

Battle

• Mago (a Carthaginian general and one of Hannibal's younger brothers) is this necessary? That he was a commander is obvious, and the parentheses can be omitted by something like 'his younger brother Mago' or similar.

Tweaked.

• Nigel Bagnall writes that this was only a minority of the Roman cavalry what does 'this' refer to?

I had to look it up! Clarified to "Nigel Bagnall writes that only a minority of the Roman cavalry survived."

Subsequent campaigns

• crossed the Apennines better spell out what the Appenines are, i.e. 'crossed the Apennine Mountains'

Done.

Other

• Might File:Triarius rome oct 2010.png be suitable for inclusion?

Not without further information. To my inexpert eye the sword and mail look fair enough. Although only a minority of legionaries wore mail. The helmet looks very dodgy to me. And no Republican close-order infantryman ever carried a shield remotely like that. Could it be a gladiatorial outfit?

Fair enough, I am also quite uncertain about it and don't have my books around to check right now.

That's it. A fine article as usual, clearly written and quite comprehensive even for a lay reader. Constantine ✍ 11:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Constantine. It seems a long time since I last had one of your rigorous but full of common sense reviews. You should do more, FAC would be the beneficiary. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Always a pleasure reviewing your articles, Gog the Mild. Thanks for the swift reply, there's only a couple of minor issues left. I am trying to become more active in reviewing lately, so I hope you'll see me more often :D Constantine ✍ 19:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Good :-) . All sorted now I think Constantine. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. Supporting now. Constantine ✍ 16:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Footnotes are from special:permanentlink/1148294029. Not really doing spotchecks.

• Footnote 45: Roman heads are mentioned; I assume the 2200 Gauls are in footnote 3 (here we just have "some Gauls").

Yes. "2000 infantry and nearly 200 cavalry".

• Footnote 107: seems to be on p. 46 at least in this version (archive.org); is yours paginated differently than this other 1967 edition? It also doesn't explicitly say that Flaminius was supposed to protect the area where he was.

It is a long trip to the library to check that, and it was, probably, when it went through GAN in 2020 that I added that, so memory is a bit hazy. So I have deleted that bit and added a snippet on the devastations cited to a source I do have to hand.

• Footnote 113: Ñaco del Hoyo is on pp. 376-392 of the book, not at the pages you say, see [2] (TWL) But page number and content check out.

Good spot. Corrected. I gave the range for Mineo. I have no idea why. Premature senility?

• Great scholarly sources, nicely formatted. A few minor issues though, see below.
• Erdkamp has a different hyphenation for the ISBN than other articles from the same book. Don't know which one is correct.

How odd. Usually the hyphenator sorts these out for me, but it seems to have bobbled. Fixed.

• Hoyos, Dexter (2015b): There is no 2015a (you might be referring to a book edited by Hoyos, but you just cite the chapters by other authors).

Ah. I think a cite to Hoyos himself in A Companion dropped out along the way and I overlooked tweaking 2015b. Now done.

• Rawlings 1996 and Sabin 1996: the 67 is either an "issue" or a "volume", not both.

Oops. Fixed.

• You sometimes cite the Companion to the Punic Wars as Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell and sometimes as Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. This is the same book, so it would be preferable to unify these.

One is the hardback, t'other is both the paperback and the on line versions. Ok, let me confirm that they are otherwise identical. Done and standardised.

• Koon 2015: it should be the 'Face' with single quotation marks (inside the double quotation marks).

That's not how it is in the source I'm looking at.

Sure, but the citation template uses double quotation marks around the chapter title, and MOS:" tells us to alternate double and single quotation marks.

Done.

• A general remark: I would prefer to have additional links/identifiers for the book chapters, for example a DOI, to make it easier for the reader to notice that fulltext is available online, either via paywall or via The Wikipedia Library. But of course that isn't necessary for FAC, it would just be more convenient. Your "one identifier only" keeps the citations as short as possible, which looks prettier.

I like pretty. But a bot will come along in a bit and add DOIs.

Think that's all! —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That's great stuff Kusma. Many thanks for picking it up and wading through my sloppiness. (I am now off to sort out other articles which may contain similar slips.) All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It's an easy pass now. Very nice work, and the sloppiness was rather minor. —Kusma (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

• ...these two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC... Is the reference to the century necessary?

I think it helpful to give readers an idea of the period during which they were the two main powers, otherwise they may not unreasonably conclude that this only applied during 264 to 241 BC.

• Why is not linked the Barcid conquest of Hispania when it is first mentioned in the third sentence ("...he greatly expanded...")?

I wanted to link at first mention of the whole Barcid expansion, rather than just that under Hamilcar. But changed.

• Is the link to Manpower/Human resources useful in the article's context? (The linked article is mainly dedicated to the task of the HR Department in a modern company.)

One should link to targets which should be useful, they may be expanded later. But, on reflection, you are correct. Removed.

• Was Hamilcar a viceroy? If yes, who was the Carthagian monarch on whose behalf he ruled?

Ha. Good spot. No, he wasn't of course. (Although one source uses "viceregally".) Tweaked.

• Why are Saguntum's, Clastidium's and Arretium's modern names not mentioned and linked in brackets? (Compare with Piacentia and Massalia.)

Done.

• Consider linking Colonia (Roman) to "Roman colonists", and Socii to "allied".

Colonia - done; socii - already linked at first mention where "allies" refers to Latin allies.

• ... in New Carthage... Perhaps "in the Iberian city of New Carthage/at New Carthage in Iberia"?

Good point. Done.

• Why not "Allobroges Gauls"? (Compare with "Cenomani Gauls" in subsection "Formations".)

Good point. I think I got carried away with "Cenomani", and so tweaked to a more summary style.

• ...besieged their capital, (near the site of modern Turin) Perhaps, "besieged their capital, (near the site of modern Turin),"?

Yep! Done.

• Hearing that Publius Scipio was operating in the region, he assumed the Roman army in Massalia... Who is he? (Hannibal is named in the previous paragraph.)

Oops. Named.

• ...with many cavalry dismounting to fight on foot... Do we know why? Roman or Carthagian cavalry or both?

Both. And when I wrote Ticinus I came up with this, possibly explanatory, footnote.

• For me, the footnote would be useful.

Added.

• Formal battles were usually preceded by the two armies camping two to twelve kilometres (1–8 miles) apart for days or weeks... Is this statement true independently of place and time (in the past)?

Tweaked.

• During wartime each of the two men elected each year as senior magistrates, known as consuls, would each lead an army. Repetition (already mentioned and linked in section "War in Cisalpine Gaul".)

Second mention removed.

• Why "its allies" instead of "allies"?

For flow and personal preference.

• The combined force which Sempronius led into battle included four Roman legions. Repetition. (That each consul led four legions is mentioned in the previous sentence.)

I don't feel that "The combined force which Sempronius led into battle included four Roman legions" is a repetition of "each consul was leading a larger army of four legions, two Roman and two provided by its allies".

• Numidians are first mentioned in section "First contact" (not in section "Carthagian").

Tweaked.

• Link light cavalry in the first paragraph of section "Carthagian" (not in the second paragraph).

Done.

• ...veteran infantry... For me, the adjective refers to a retired soldier. (Compare with the definition of "military veteran" in the second sentence of article veteran.)

Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source. The normal sense is "A person with long experience of a particular activity" (from Wiiktionary) or "a person who has had a lot of experience of a particular activity" (Cambridge). Cambridge offers as its second definition "someone who has been in the armed forces during a war".

• ... half of the surviving elephants... We are not informed that elephants had died.

Corrected.

• Delink war elephants in section "Carthagian".

Done.

• He was so eager to give battle that few, if any, of them had eaten breakfast. Who is he and who are they (who had not eaten breakfast)? (In a previous sentence, the Carthagians' breakfast is mentioned.)

Which I had thought had made the situation clear. Now even clearer.

• ...slingers from the Balearics... Is it necessary to repeat (for the third time) that the slingers were from the Balearics?

Excluding the picture caption, I make it the first. "Slingers were frequently recruited from the Balearic Islands" does not logically imply that these slingers were.

• Why Adrian Goldsworthy instead of Goldsworthy in subsection "Casualties" (as he is already mentioned in previous sections multiple times)?

Trimmed.

• Why is "quinqueremes" not italicised?

Because several dictionaries, including Wiktionary and Chambers, list it as an English word.

• Delink Ariminum in section "Aftermath".

Done.

• Why is "Etruria" not defined as "(modern Tuscany)"? (Compare with Cisalpine Gaul in section "War in Cisalpine Gaul".)

Because the two correspond poorly and I feel that it would be more misleading than helpful to equate them.

• I think the association of Cisalpine Gaul with northern Italy may be even more misleading (Cisalpine Gaul did not include modern Friuli and Liguria).

Good point. I don't know why I included "modern", I haven't in other similar article. Replaced with "in" in the lead. The main text now reads "the area of north Italy either side of the River Po known as Cisalpine Gaul" with no parentheses.

Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Lovely stuff. Thank you for dropping by and picking up all of that Borsoka. All addressed above I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think there are two pending minor issues but they cannot prevent me from supporting the promotion of this nicely written, interesting article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Borsoka, that is generous of you. Your two outstanding points both addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Request for the coordinators

• @FAC coordinators: G'day y'all, requesting permission to push another one into no man's land? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  "Y'all"? I thought you were British... Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Carson a bha thu a’ smaoineachadh sin? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Never mind Gog's origin, I suspect his salutation was just trying to curry favour with the Aussie and the American on the panel... ;-) So okay, he's succeeded with the former -- Gog, falbh air a shon! (Or something like that...) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Gum beannaicheadh ​​Dia thu, a dhuine uasail. Am faca tu an dealbh air an duilleag chleachdaiche agam? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Most welcome, and yes -- magnificent! (The mountains are impressive too...) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I could've sworn this little rascal once admitted to being British! He just loves playing tricks, doesn't he? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

From a first canter through for spelling etc:

• "the size and make up of the opposing army" – the OED and Chambers both give "make-up" a hyphen when used as a noun, as here.

Changed.

• "javelinmen" (twice) – the OED and Chambers both hyphenate "javelin-man", and so presumably the plural should also be hyphenated.

Hyphenated in all five instances.

Touché! So much for my eagle-eyed reviewing, missing more than I spotted! Tim riley talk 11:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

More anon when I have read the article for content etc. Tim riley talk 10:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The rest of my comments

After a leisurely perusal I have precious little to quibble about in this excellent article. My meagre gleanings:

• Lead

• "Publius Scipio personally led the cavalry ... He was soundly beaten and personally wounded" – two personallys in close proximity. (And can one be impersonally wounded?)

Indeed. Rephrased.

• Pre-war

• "He was succeeded by his son-in-law, Hasdrubal, then his son Hannibal in 221 BC" – two points here. It is unclear if the date applies only to Hannibal or if there were two successions in one year. Secondly, "then" didn't oughter be pressed into service as a conjunction in formal English: "and then" would be better, I think.

Both fixed. (I think.)

I think so too. Tim riley talk 13:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• First contact

• "A large melee ensued" – the OED throws accents at the noun – mêlée – and so, slightly to my surprise, does Chambers.

Goodness me. Both changed.

• Prelude

• "Scipio was still partially incapacitated" – not sure what "partially" has got that the shorter "partly" hasn't, apart from three extra letters.

Three random letters removed.

• "to share the glory of an imagined victory" – if I correctly take your meaning here I think perhaps "conjectural" might be clearer than "imagined".

I had "anticipated", but Constantine above preferred "imagined". I am going back to "anticipated", but would be happy to discuss further with both of you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment sponsored by Pedants R Us Pedants R We: "anticipate" should not be used as a mere synonym of "expect", and the OED defines it as To consider, envisage, guess at (an issue, argument, demand, or likely course of events) in advance, esp. in order to prepare an appropriate response, and I think your use of it here complies with that definition. Better than my suggested "conjectural" in my view. Tim riley talk 13:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Hannibal was also ready for a set piece battle" – the OED hyphenates "set-piece" when used adjectivally.

And so it should. Done.

• Roman

• "The near-contemporary historian Polybius ... the Roman historian Livy" – if you're going to tell us that Livy was Roman, perhaps you might also say that Polybius was Greek, but I'm not sure we need their nationalities, really,

Ah, there is at least one regular reviewer with strong feelings on that. "Greek" added.

• Early stages

• "and secret themselves in an old watercourse" – the OED describes "secret" as obsolete when used as a verb; since the 18th century the verb has been "secrete".

Dragged kicking and screaming ... Done.

• Notes

• "These elephants ... should not be confused with the larger African bush elephant." – speaking for myself, I should be unlikely to confuse anything with an African bush elephant, but be that as it may, is there a touch of WP:EDIT about the wording? A less admonitory wording such as "as distinct from" might be preferable. Just a thought.

A good one. Tweaked.

– Tim riley talk 11:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff Mr riley. My thanks. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. A good read, well illustrated, appears balanced and suitably sourced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. And now I see the other Co-ords have let Gog run amuck with another bloody battle in the Punic War. I'll look in there after a brief lie-down to get my strength back. Tim riley talk 13:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

One can't get too much Punic. As someone must have said at some time. My fellow co-ords believe it keeps me out of (worse) trouble. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

          One simply can't get too much Punic,
          Whether writing in English or Runic,
             Or so Gog asserts,
             But he'll get his deserts
          When I shove the whole lot up his tunic.

Tim riley talk 14:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Tim, I think you've missed your calling...! One little thing: as Prince Faisal tells T.E. in Lawrence of Arabia, "I think you are another of these desert-loving English..." -- how else to explain the "s" missing from the fourth line... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

When you're challenged by young Ian Rose,
You're allowed, in my view, to suppose
That he knows how to spell,
And we know very well
He is one of our very best pro's.

Tim riley talk 19:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Heh, there's an art to simultaneously praising and putting one in one's place. Having only ever heard the expression and never seen it written before, I should've checked the dictionary before opening my big mouth -- we live and learn! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.