Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Ticinus/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) 27 September 2022 [1].

Battle of Ticinus[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my series of Second Punic War articles. This is an account of the first time Hannibal fought the Romans. No prizes for guessing who won. The article was promoted to GA two years ago and has been reworked a little in the light of feedback during the recent FAC of Second Punic War. Sadly, no elephants. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Comparing the two (see below) the current one (top) seems to me to contain more information, to convey it more clearly, to show Rome's sphere of influence in northern Italy and Sicily more accurately, and to have a more complete and more visible key. What do you find better about the suggested alternative?
Personally I prefer the higher quality of the image, as well as the better display of rivers and lakes, as the Ebro river is quite significant. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The First Punic War was fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers... perhaps The First Punic War was fought between Carthage and Rome, as the two main powers... or else The First Punic War was fought between Carthage and Rome, where the two main powers... to better link the clauses
I see your point. Resolved a little differently.
  • Four years later Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica on a cynical pretence... I would expand this a little to give a bit more context perhaps, Four years later Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica on a cynical pretence and imposed a further 1,200 talent indemnity, after the Carthaginians were weakened by the Mercenary War
Gone with "Four years later, when Carthage was weakened by the mutiny of part of its army and the rebellion of many of its African possessions, Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica on a cynical pretence and ..."
  • escorted him away from the fight, saving his life. in the lede you say captured or killed; should standardize the two IMO, or at least have the one in the body be the more expansive of the two.
Done.
Thanks Iazyges, that was very prompt. Your points all addressed above. Also your comment below. Thanks for your helpful copy editing. Note that I have reverted a couple of minor tweaks - [2]. There is not a complete ban on duplicate Wikilinks and I think it unreasonable to expect a reader to understand that "16-year-old son", which they may not have clicked on, is "Publius Cornelius Scipio". "to" has come up before and I think it is a USEng-BritEng thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Will take this up as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hoyos, Dexter (2015b). Worldcat seems to want to give publishing location as New York in spite of being from Oxford University Press; defer to whichever version you used. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The copy I used has 16 locations on the publication page, with Oxford first. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems you have 15 more locations to add /s. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:Défaite_de_Scipion_près_du_Téssin.jpg needs a US tag
Done.
  • File:218BCMAPMEDITERRANEAN_(cropped).jpg presents a MOS:COLOUR issue which is complicated by the fact that the colours in the legend don't seem to entirely align with the colours actually visible on the map?
  • File:218_aC_GALLIA_CISALPINA.png needs a legend
  • File:Sacred_Band_cavalryman.png: what's the author's date of death?
Done.
  • File:Mommsen_p265_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag and author date of death for the photo.
Tag done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link more names and terms in image captions?
Personally I consider image captions to be part of the article they are in, and so are liable to over-linking. Is there any policy which suggests they shouldn't be?
I thought the guideline was clearer, but it just says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."[3] To me, the image text is separate from the article body in the same way as the intro is, and I think it helps the reader to get the context of the images. But appears it is optionable. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if a borderless (and textless) alternate version of the infobox image could be made? Looks a bit distracting, and borders are generally discouraged.
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Rome and Carthage at first mention outside intro? Iberia?
Oops. Done.
  • Link Gallic at first instead of second mention?
Picky, picky. Done.
  • Link Carthaginians?
It just comes back to Ancient Carthage, which is already inked.
Ah, I swore I saw a link to Punics from that somewhere. Oh, seems it's in Hannibal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with Consul.
Moved from second to first mention.
  • "weakened by the mutiny of mutiny of part of its army" I assume only one mutiny is needed?
They were very mutinous. Done.
  • "The contemporary historian Polybius considered this act of bad faith" State his ethnicity so we know he was of neither side?
Done.
  • "to expand Carthaginian holdings in south-east Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal)" Who controlled it prior to this?
A rag bag of petty tribes, some loosely organised into unstable confederations. I am not sure that going into this would be helpful to a reader.
  • "in 229 BC} and" What is that bracket for?
A Typo, well spotted.
  • The Hannibal caption could state his role, per "establishes the picture's relevance to the article".[4]
He's Hannibal! But done.
Sure is, ever thought of doing biographies? FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hannibal arrived with 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and 37 elephants" You say no elephants in the blurb here, so what happened to them?
ORing, I would guess that Hannibal considered them unsuitable for a fast moving reconnaissance role.
Excellent stuff FunkMonk. I am eagerly awaiting your next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many were from North Africa, ans are usually" And?
Sorted.
  • Link javelin in first instead of second mention in article body?
Done.
  • Link and introduce Livy at first mention instead of second.
Done.
  • "In the confusion Scipio's 16-year-old son, of the same name, leading a small group, cut his way through to his wounded father and escorted him away from the fight, saving him from being either captured or killed." Where is the movie about these wars?
Don't start me! But I am happy to work up an outline script if you can interest an agent.
  • "In the confusion Scipio's 16-year-old son" and "In 204 BC Publius Cornelius Scipio, the same man who had fought as a youth at Ticinus" is confusing, as the first is an easter egg, and the reader doesn't know it's the same person from just reading the article. Add more of the name first mention and remove duplink?
Sorry, but how is it an Easter egg? And there is not a prohibition on duplinks, and I think that in this case the benefit for the reader merits one.
Well, my main point is that without actually clicking on the first link without the name, I have no idea the two are the same from just reading the article, which is unfortunate. So either name him the first time, or state more explicitly that it's the son mentioned earlier at second mention. Just saying he fought there as a youth doesn't really make the connection clear to the general reader. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the "of the same name" part, but there is something about how it is written that is confusing, which I see the two other reviews also remark on, so it seems something should be tweaked. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk. Ok. Changed to "In the confusion Scipio's 16-year-old son, also named Publicus Cornelius Scipio"... I have also tweaked the rest of the sentence a little. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, not seeing the edit yet, though. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Carthaginians moved south into Roman Italy." A bit of a cliffhanger in the intro, should it be stated here that he campaigned in Italy for the next 12 years? Would perhaps round it off better.
Fair nuff, done.
  • Thanks for that. I am on holiday for a few days. I'll look at them properly once I'm back. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk, back and your issues addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good, and I trust the last suggested edit will be added either way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too many tabs open! Well reminded. Now clicked. Thanks for both the support and the trust. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CPA[edit]

Just a random comment here.

  • The image File:218BCMAPMEDITERRANEAN (cropped).jpg is a bit blurry maybe replace it or try to make it less blurry? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may just be me, but I don't find it blurry at all. Eg, compare the two maps at the top of this page where (to me) "File:218BCMAPMEDITERRANEAN (cropped).jpg" seems the crisper. As well as considerable other advantages. That said, if your map manipulation skills are better than my non-existent ones feel free to tweak the map in any way that you feel improves it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias[edit]

  • The end of the second paragraph of Iberia gets a bit repetitive with how often the year is mentioned, particularly near the start of sentences. Could some of these be made relative?
Done.
  • Also, it is a bit confusing that the last two sentences aren't in chronological order.
Sorry, but which two sentences are you referring to?
It was "In 218 BC a Carthaginian army under Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum. In early 219 BC Rome declared war on Carthage." You've now merged them, and changed "in early 219 BC" to "and early the following year" – should it originally have been 217 BC? Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should have. A demonstration of my sad inability to count backwards.
  • "..who were finally defeated in 222. In 218 the.." Both BC I assume?
Added.
  • "The Roman Senate detached one Roman and one allied legion from the force intended for Iberia to send to the region." It is probably just the disjointed way I'm reading this as part of a review, but I initially struggled to work out which region this referred to, as the last mentioned region was Iberia itself. Maybe just for me, but could you make it clear where they were sent in the prose here.
No, you're right. Sorted.
  • "At the same time a Roman army.." Might "another" work better than "a" here?
Ok. Done.
  • "..then taking an inland route.." "took", not "taking".
Done.
  • "..Publius returned to Italy." This feels like it could do with a little more context on why he returned to Italy.
Excellent point. Done.
  • "With his scouts reporting.." Avoid the 'noun plus -ing' construction.
Fixed.
  • "Next day each commander led out a strong force to personally reconnoitre the size and make up of the opposing army, things of which they would have been almost completely ignorant." I don't like much about this sentence! Personally, I'd prefer it to start with "The", and I find the "things of which" to be awkward; how about "..opposing army, about which they.."?
No "The", but good point re "which", so changed as you suggest.
  • "..referred to by Livy as "steady".." This is the first mention of Livy, introduce him please.
Done.
  • "..and a 40 centimetres (1 ft 4 in) shield." This should be hyphenated and singular, surely? "..and a 40-centimetre (1 ft 4 in) shield."
Bleh! Thank you. Done.
  • "..of the 4,500 or so available light infantry javelinmen." The velites?
Changed.
  • "..camping one to seven miles (2–12 km) apart.." In the other two places distances are used, the article uses metric (imperial); switch this for consistency.
Oops again. Thanks. Done.
  • "Then the Carthaginian light cavalry.." Feels odd starting a paragraph with "then", but I think it's just me.
I agree with you.
  • "..attacked from both sides, routed and suffered.." Surely this should be "was routed"?
Nope. (That is, "was routed" would be grammatically correct, but so is the current usage, which is the one I want.)
  • "In the confusion Scipio's 16-year-old son, of the same name, leading a small group, cut his way through.." I don't like the sentence construction here with two subordinate clauses back-to-back, can it be rephrased?
Rephrased. See what you think.
Much better. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..some 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) away." No need for the precision of ".0" in the conversion.
Oops. Fixed.

A good interesting read as usual. Nothing major to deal with here, mostly nitpicking and disagreement of minor wording. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias and many thanks for that. One query - your second point - one "rout" left and one "The" not added. Otherwise I have gone with all of your suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on those, one clarification requested. I realised that I skipped the lead, just a few points here I think:

  • "..with many cavalry dismounting to fight on foot and some of the Roman javelinmen reinforcing.." Avoid the 'noun plus -ing' construction.
Done.
  • The article text refers to the "River Ticinus", while the infobox refers to the "Ticino River"; is Ticino the modern name? If so, I think this is worth mentioning, as you've done for other places.
Fair nuff, done.
  • The article text says that the precise location of the battle isn't known, but the infobox gives coordinates: if we don't know the precise location, surely we can't provide coordinates?
Bleh. Nicely spotted. I inherited it and have something of a blind spot for coords. Removed.

Right, nothing more after that. I think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good stuff, really nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "This continued indecisively until the Numidians swept round both ends of the line of battle and attacked the still disorganised javelinmen; the small Roman cavalry reserve, to which Scipio had attached himself; and the rear of the already engaged Roman cavalry, throwing them all into confusion and panic." I am not sure whether this sentence can be simplified, but I had to read it two or three times to understand it.
Ah, yes. Split into three sentences.
  • "3,200 talents was approximately 82,000 kg (81 long tons) of silver". Worth approx $50 million today.
I sincerely doubt that attempting to convey comparisons in purchasing power over 2,260 years is meaningful. Eg $50 mn is the smallest of change to a modern government; 3,200 talents was intended to financially cripple Carthage for a decade.
  • "south-east Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal)" This is ambiguous whether "(modern Spain and Portugal)" refers to the whole of Iberia or just the south-east.
Fixed.
  • "The Carthaginians needed to obtain supplies of food, as they had exhausted their reserve, and obtain allies among the north-Italian Gallic tribes from which they could recruit, in order to build up their army to a size with which it could effectively take on the Romans." This seems a bit clumsy. Maybe "The Carthaginians needed to to get supplies of food, and recruit additional troops among the north-Italian Gallic tribes in order to effectively take on the Romans."
It is a little clumsy. Amended to "The Carthaginians needed to obtain supplies of food, as they had exhausted their reserves. They also wished to obtain allies among the north-Italian Gallic tribes from which they could recruit, as Hannibal believed that he required a larger army if he were to effectively take on the Romans."
  • "the small Roman cavalry reserve, where Scipio had positioned himself. They also threatened, and threw javelins at, the rear of the already engaged Roman troops". "They" appears to refer to the Romans until you read that the attacked the Romans.
Good point. Specified.
  • "The main force of Roman cavalry, attacked from both sides, routed and suffered heavy losses". "were routed". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. "routed" is a correct and appropriate use.
  • My Oxford Dictionary of English defines rout as "defeat and cause to retreat in disorder". It gives the example "in a matter of minutes the attackers were routed". There is no definition of rout as meaning being defeated, which is how you are using it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley Miles, I am a little confused here. You say that "[t]here is no definition of rout as meaning being defeated ..." while two sentences before seeming to agree with the definition of rout as "defeat and cause to retreat in disorder" (emphasis added). The definition you quote seems to settle that to be routed means to first be defeated and then to retreat in disorder. Or am I being dim and you mean something else?
Re your suggestion that "were" be added, "rout" can be used as an intransitive verb, which is how it is used here. My (sliightly on-standard) OED gives "... 2. intr. To break into rout; to flee in disorder." which is how I am using the word. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the same suggestion (well, "was" rather than "were"). Even if you are technically correct that this usage is acceptable, it seems that for improved readability, it would be better changed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for misremembering your suggestion. The readability seems fine to me. (I am not sure why you feel the need to use "technically" in your response.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also confused. You quote me as saying "[t]here is no definition of rout as meaning being defeated ...", and then you appear to disagree, saying "The definition you quote seems to settle that to be routed means to first be defeated". But both are saying the same thing. To rout is to win, to be routed is to be defeated, to cause to retreat in disorder is to win decisively. You use rout in the article in the opposite sense as to lose.
You cite OED as using rout in your sense, as to lose, but that meaning is described as rare since the 17th century. My paper Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE not OED) and the online Merriam Webster only define rout as to win, not as to lose as you use it. I do not think it is helpful to readers to use a definition which is not in standard non-specialist dictionaries. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, the online OED gives "rout, v.11: b. intransitive. To take to flight in disorder and haste, after being defeated by a superior enemy force. rare after 17th cent." Given we live in a post-17th century world, it suggests this usage is rare. It is one that both Dudley Miles and I are uncomfortable with; personally I found it awkward when I read it the first time. As a reviewer, I'm extrapolating that a good percentage of those reading the article would find it similarly awkward or even confusing. For the sake of a minor rephrase I think this is an odd hill to die on. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response Dudley; thanks for chipping in Harrias. It would see that consensus and the sources are in favour of "was", and so added. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am away for a week Dudley. I shall attend to your comments once I am back. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - Have you been able to return to here? Hog Farm Talk 00:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: thank you for the nudge. Dudley Miles, thank you for looking this over and apologies that I have let it slip. I have now addressed all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2022 (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_Ticinus/archive1&oldid=1112759800"