Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Oroscopa/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) 16 October 2021 [1].

Battle of Oroscopa[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A short article on a brief conflict from 2,172 years ago. Despite the article's brevity I believe that I have extracted all the information from the sources that there is. An inconsequential conflict in itself, it is much commented on as the event which sparked the Third Punic War and the destruction of Carthage. Enjoy. But in a constructively critical way. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 00:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering Sources?
Le Bohec moved.
  • Harris: edition statement shouldn't be part of the title paramter
Gah! I've done it again! Fixed.
  • Where is Warminster?
Apparently in Wiltshire. Is that a trick question, or did Iazyges get there before me?
The latter, although now I'm not sure that Cambridgeshire is strictly necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that it’s not, and have already removed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've removed one; there is another. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*rolly eyes* I need to put more water in it. Terminated. Thank you. 21:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • One UNESCO (publisher) is sufficient, don't need two.
Can't have too much of UNESCO, but if you insist ...

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again Nikkimaria, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges[edit]

  • Was the GA reviewer recently, have no further suggestions. I have added state locations to some refs without them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X[edit]

  • Hasdrubal the Boetharch is being linked here; that article states "He may have been the same Hasdrubal who was defeated at the Battle of Oroscopa in 151 BC" (emphasis mine)—granted that article is much less extensively sourced than this but is this uncertainty something we should be marking here perhaps?
Well now. In the sources Goldsworthy states they are different people; Bagnall, Miles and Harris unequivocally state that they are the same person. To my mind this gives a consensus to the "one person" school, and as Miles and Harris are specialists and Goldsworthy a generalist, and the former two academically considerably outrank the latter, I don't consider that we need to mention the single outlier as a minority opinion.
Fair. If not accepting them as one and same is the outlier then the Hasdrubal article is likely giving undue weight to it.
  • The images both are freely licensed with clear histories as to their derivation. That said, the caption for File:Map of kingdom of numidia ancient algeria (cropped).png states this is "Numidia at its greatest extent"—is there a time frame for this? Given that the battle in question resulted from territorial gains it seems it may be concurrent with these events but if it is or isn't this would be useful to clarify
Good point. Caption changed.
Time frame is helpful but I would have retained the "greatest extent" part; even adding "in 150 BC" to the prior one would have been perfect.
  • Strange to see no links to Numidian cavalry and, to a lesser extent, Carthago delenda est when these subjects come up, the former could easily be included while the latter might warrant a pipe (probably behind "systematically destroyed the city") for context. Just a nitpick, really.
Numidian cavalry. There is reference to the cavalry of the Numidians, and even a description of how they fought. The article on "Numidian cavalry" really relates to those who fought in the Second Punic War, and perhaps earlier. In the intervening 50 years the sources talk of increasing urbanisation, a more organised military structure and the army generally becoming more disciplined. So maybe there were "Numidian cavalry" in the 2PW and Wikipedia article sense and maybe there weren't. As the sources don't commit themselves, it would seem OR for me to.
Fair; the passage describing "cavalry charging and counter-charging while hurling javelins at each other" does seem to indicate a similar battlefield role though, I don't know that it would be OR so much as just an editorial choice not to, which is still fine.
Carthago delenda est. Don't get me started. I went through this repeatedly in the FAC of Third Punic War. Why should we mention an 18th century invention in order to make it clear that there is no record of any contemporary ever saying it in relationship to a war which is not the subject of this article? </rant>
Make sure you open and close any <rant> tags properly.
  • Interesting to see another Carthaginian engagement decided by starvation—do any of the historians draw parallels to the Battle of the Saw?
Sadly not. Perhaps because it was so common.
  • Other than this I'm satisfied with this article—brief, as you mention, but it does not feel incomplete, and the use of historical context makes it a perfectly self-contained read. Would take little to move to supporting this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grapple X and thanks for looking this over. I have responded above to all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see that anything I've raised has been addressed/responded to. Happy to support this at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • " Rome ended... Rome's permission. Rome's ally" bit Rome-tastic.
I have tried to vary the language a little. Not sure how successful I have been.
  • As with a lot of FAs I've reviewed lately, the first para of the lead appears to be a lead for the lead. You mention the heavy defeat and then go back and start explaining the events in brief. A lead for the lead seems odd to me.
I agree. Blame MOS:BEGIN and MOS:FIRST. "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where"; "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic". A FAC without an introduction to the lead is basically failing FAC criterion 2 "It follows the style guidelines". (Talk about unintended consequences. At least, I hope they are unintended.)
Ok, well that's how it is I suppose. A lead within a lead. How .... curious. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frequently annoys me. Meeting that requirement while writing to a professional standard. Grr.
  • The numbers of men, precisely hundred or precisely 1000, is that for real? Should these numbers be "around"/"approximately" or was there a thing that Carthage worked in base ten exclusively?
I can only report what the sources say. Obviously I don't believe the precision for a moment, but the sources all trot out the round numbers without caveats, so me introducing any would be OR. I have just rechecked them; even a retired field marshall, Bagnall, trots out the nice round numbers.
  • In the first para you say "unknown location in northern Tunisia" but then you say "the Carthaginian-held town of Oroscopa" so this is a little odd for me. We know the town name, we just don't (apparently) know its precise geo-location.
Yep. That is exactly the situation. (Classicists spend a lot of time trying to identify the modern location of places named in ancient primary texts. And squabbling with each other about their preferences.)
So why in the lead wouldn't you say it happened in Oroscopa, rather than an "unknown location"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both are true, but you're correct. Changed to "near the ancient town of Oroscopa in what is now northwestern Tunisia", which should work for most readers. They can find out in the main article that it is no more narrowed down than that.
  • "tribal levies " what are they?
Rephrased.
  • " was able to starve the Carthaginians into surrender." so a siege then?
Weell, not in my book. To me a siege is something that happens to a fixed location - a fortification or town - not an army. Or we would have the siege of Dunkirk and the siege of Bastogne (Battle of the Bulge) during WW2. If you think it helps reader comprehension I am not overly anti, but that's why I didn't use the term.
  • "perhaps most, were killed" of them.
Added.
  • "There Hasdrubal was condemned" I would put a comma after There.
Done. (It now reads as gibberish to me, but I have given up on comma wars - there are different schools and the debates can get tedious.)
Sorry, the addition of a comma means that "It now reads as gibberish"? Really? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Carthaginians were" you're using a different pipelink from the one you used in the lead for exactly the same displayed text, confusing.
In the main article I am referring to the foundation of Carthage, so a link to History of Carthage seemed appropriate. I have linked to Ancient Carthage at first mention of Carthage in the previous sentence. I can remove History of Carthage if you wish.
I suggest you don't have Carthage pipelinked twice but to completely different articles. How you cope with that is up to you, might need a little imagination in re-phrasing the prose to make it less easter egg I suppose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stripped them of their overseas territories, and some of their African ones." African ones were overseas as well...
Not from Carthage, which is in Africa. See the map in Aftermath.
  • "At the end of the war which war?
Stated.
  • "raided into territory" never heard "raided into", just "raided"...
66,000 examples [2]
3.7 mn examples of the present tense, the first from Oxford reference [3]
Amazing. I would imagine "raids into" would be standard, but "raided into" is most odd to my ear. How many hits for "raided territory"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
!,470! [4]. But possibly that's not quite what you meant.
Some support for its academic use - [5]
  • "grandfather's old ally do you mean elderly or former?
Ah, yes. Neither. Removed.
  • You start and end the battle para with the 151 BC claim, do we need both, or should that last sentence be moved up/merged?
Ah. I really, really take your point. But I can't move up that the battle and surrender, which I have not yet mentioned, to the start. And removing the date at the start is playing silly beggers with the reader. Is it that bad> The reader is told at the start that Numidian raids were happening in 151. At the end they are told that the key events happened in late 151. But I can see why you flag it up. Any thoughts?
So you're using the last sentence as a summary? It just strikes me as odd to do that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. No, intended more to deliniate when it was all over by. Rephrased to express that a little more clearly. I hope.
  • "Carthage paid off its indemnity in 151 BC" so within months?
Clarified.
  • Several intrusive reference placements, never been a massive fan of mid-sentence refs when I firmly believe that readers can wait until the end of a clause before getting linked up to the info they might need.
And I get driven potty by cites which are wilfully not placed next to the information they support. Leaving a reader playing a guessing game at the end of a sentence. If cites are not to be tied to the information they support why not group them at the end of the paragraph, or section. Or all at the end of the article. That would certainly minimise reader distraction.
That's a little extreme, but punctuating sentences with multiple references about completely non-controversial matters seems a little absurd to me. If you're citing things which could be argued over, then fine, but most of your mid-sentence cites are nothing special and could easily just go at the end of clauses or sentences. Perhaps I'm used to reading scientific and engineering papers where we tend to assume a minimum level of intelligence in our readers who can think "well it must be in one of those three citations at the end of the sentence" yet prefer that to the horrible interruption of citations literally mid-sentence. There's no "guessing game". And we're looking for professional prose, not punctuated with [43][67] etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you caught me on a sore spot. I shouldn't have gone into rant mode. Plenty of my sources match cites to prose, regardless of whether that coincides with the end of a sentence, and I tend to think of them as professional.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I even said "end of a clause" so not even a sentence. Your extreme example wasn't what I was saying in any sense. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that it was what you meant. It was intended as a reductio ad absurdum of removing the close attachment of cites from what they support. I did understand "clause" to mean sentence, so I will have a check to see if there is room for any movement and get back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evening TRM, and many thanks for that. Good, thought-provoking stuff. Responses to your comments above. Some I am afraid at some length. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was very prompt. Thank you. More from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon TRM, all citations are now immediately after puncuation, which is hopefully satisfactory. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM, do you have more to come on this? If not, do you feel able to either support or oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I re-read and it's fine by me, so I'm happy to go for support on this one. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Gog, I'm a bit rusty but some suggestions follow...

  • Hasdrubal wlinks to Hasdrubal the Boeotarch which redirects to Hasdrubal the Boetharch which says "not to be confused with the Greek boeotarch" - do your sources definitely use the extra "o" and missing "h" spelling for him?
My sources don't mention "Boetharch" or any variant thereof. Changed to avoid the redirect.
  • In the mid-2nd-century - remove second hyphen?
Done.
  • "by the Romans by the" - reword to avoid 2x "by the" (perhaps, "The Romans referred to the Carthaginians by the Latin word Punicus..."?)
Done.
  • Many senior Carthaginians wanted to reject it, but - swap "it" to "the treaty" (or it could read as "it" referring to Senate's permission)
Done.
  • it is unclear as to whether Masinissa - remove "as to"
Done.
  • components of their shields and equipment - other equipment
Done.
  • Masinissa's son, Gulassa redlink - is this an alt spelling of Gulussa?
Nope, it's a typo. Fixed.
  • Hasdrubal was condemned to death - was he killed?
No. (I deliberately haven't gone into the post-battle story of either commander.)
  • massacre probably were probably over by late - probably remove a probably
Oops. Done
  • faction within the Roman Senate that had wished - is overlink intentional?
No. Fixed. Thanks.
  • the city of Carthage - wlink?
Done.
  • 50,000 of them, who were sold into slavery - in lede you have "death or enslavement of its population."
True. And? "... and killed its inhabitants. Only on the last day were prisoners taken ..." in the body would seem to cover this.
  • The formerly Carthaginian territories became - former? (would be adverb if say verb 'held' was used?)
Changed.
  • The location of Oroscopa, other than that it was in what is now northern Tunisia is not clear. - I think a comma is needed after Tunisia
Done.
  • there are 2 years with non-breaking spaces (201 BC and 151 BC) - remove those or add to rest for consistency
Done.
  • northwestern v south west of - format
Standardised.
  • regardless of the treaty - maybe disregarding? (they basically mean same but disregarding sounds more wilful?)
Erm. You are stating that they mean the same thing, then suggesting a change because they don't. And to me regardless sounds more wilful. Not that I really care, but I thought that you may want to reconsider given your internal contradiction - let me know if you would still prefer the change.
Ha, internal contradiction? My head is full of them!

That'll do for me, JennyOz (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff JennyOz, as usual the article is the better for your dropping by. Is there more to come? Per your edit summary. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good thanks Gog, happy to add support. JennyOz (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and suggestion from Chidgk1[edit]

  • Combine the 2 maps and add Rome. Remove siga and cirta
Nice idea, but unfortunately both are pre-printed maps - I can either use them as they are or not at all. Sadly I have not been able to find any maps of this period which are better. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it would be an easy job for the wizards at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop to knock one up. As a European I know where Rome is but I expect a lot of southern hemisphere people do not, so I think it would really help anyone completely new to European history. Also adding Vaga might inspire some keen archaeology student to try and find Oroscopa. Also a good image coming up in Google search might lead someone to click through to the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you found this comment useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators[edit]

@Ian Rose:@FAC coordinators: Permission to nominate another? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 4 October 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_Oroscopa/archive1&oldid=1054373644"