GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Ifly6 ( talk · contribs) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
(Criteria marked
are unassessed)
Will start actual line-by-line review soon. Ifly6 ( talk) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Pen & Sword is not an academic publisher.
Carey does not seem to be an expert on Roman warfare or on the period.
Similarly, Bagnall is a soldier.
Neither of these are part of the reliable peer reviewed scholarship.
Miles is fine, though I think RS would also prefer his academic publications over his Penguin ones.
(These are all suggestions and you can implement or ignore discretionarily. If there is anything truly important I will bold it.)
these are all suggestsion and you can implement or ignore discretionarily. My focus has always been on political culture, which perhaps may colour my remarks. If you think them perhaps too in-depth for a military history article, certainly make the point. Ifly6 ( talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
all but extinguishedseems like an exaggeration and seems inconsistent with the description of a commander, an area, etc below. Perhaps reword to
In 211 BC the Romans were defeated at battle of the Upper Baetis, reducing the Roman presence on the peninsula to a small territory in the north-east. I would also omit
(modern Spain and Portugal); you say it below anyway and I think readers can be expected to know what Iberia is.
personal ties [of future-Africanus] to native aristocratswhich is worth including.
When the Celtiberians deserted the Romansbetween
Celtiberiansand
deserted.
only a small strip of coastline north of the Ebroat your citation location. Zimmerman instead says at p 291
Rome's position [was]... thrown back to... 218.
Scipio commanded a total of 31,000 men: 28,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalryIs this a modern estimate or an ancient one? Who made it?
This division of Carthaginian forces in Iberia, to the extent that it was difficult for them to mutually support each other, ...perhaps
This division of Carthaginian forces made it difficult for them to support each other.with some splits in the run-on sentence.
Such a tactic could have led to an inconclusive campaign, at the end of which the Romans would have had to retreat...suggest
Lack of decision would have forced a Roman withdrawal after an inconclusive campaign, which would have negatively affected the reliability of Rome's Iberian allies.
The text of captions should not be specially formatted (with italics, for example), except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text) indicates that your image captions should not be centred. Re the image, consider citing Coarelli, F (2002). "I ritratti di 'Mario' e 'Silla' a Monaco e il sepolcro degli Scipioni". Eutopia. 2002 (1): 47–75. ISSN 1121-1628.
When he arrived in Iberia Scipio...
Scipio also reputedly learned details of how fordable the lagoon to the north was, in particular the effect of the tides and, possibly, the wind on it.
The story of the ebb of the water... is simply unhistorical.Note though that Richardson dismisses the received story of how NC was captured entirely – I agree with him here, handwavery about the wind also is not credible – and thinks it is a myth created to make SA look badass. But in this matter I may be more critical than most; perhaps say instead that Polyb and Appian assert tides and that Livy asserts wind. Ifly6 ( talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
He [Scipio] was aware [of insert details here]. I would rephrase in terms of [insert details] simply being the case.
second in command→
second-in-command. I would also mention his rank – praefectus classis – per MRR 1.288.
Goldsworthy 2004, p. ##, 449 n. 11, citing Polyb. 10.9.4–7 and Liv. 26.42.1is definitely how Wikipedia works. It is merely the full citation for where Goldsworthy found those numbers. I recommended a further dive into troop assessments because I don't believe the ancient sources' counts (exaggerated for commanders' benefit at the start; see eg Val Max 2.8.1 noting legislation by Cato requiring commanders to swear to the accuracy of their kill counts when returning to the city), as I felt it would improve the article. Ifly6 ( talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not known at what point Scipio revealed their objective to his senior officers.
Nb I've also made a few grammar corrections here and there.
Goldsworthy 2004 p. 61seems like it should be
pp. 60–61.
As a historian, wanting to understand a tangential subject, if I find I'm reading a paper or encyclopedia article that doesn't at least show awareness of the primary sources, I stop reading and look for something better.
if there are no citations of primary sources, then, as Andrew points out, they will not value Wikipedia articles
a more pressing reason to offer citations to primary sources is as a service to our readers, who will then find reason to begin their research by reading/consulting the relevant articles on Wikipedia. Offering these helps our readers, reducing the time they need to track down information with links to these passages
near-contemporary and usually reliable Greek historian Polybiusat 43–44. Perhaps reword simply to Polyb says XYZ, Livy says ABC, etc.
What terms he was granted is not known: I don't see anything in Goldsworthy In the name... p. 65 talking about the lack of knowledge about the specific terms under which Mago surrendered.
10,000 Carthaginians→ 10,000 men or inhabitants (?), per Goldsworthy Fall p. 276: "Of the 10,000 men captured, the citizens were released, the non-citizen[s]... were made public slaves..."
The unexpected blow caused the Carthaginian generals to fall back on the defensive, continuing to disagree among themselves; although in total they far outnumbered the Romans, they made no attempt to combine their forces.Perhaps reword to The unexpected blow caused the Carthaginian generals to fall back on the defensive; continuing to disagree among themselves, they made no attempt to combine their forces even though in total they far outnumbered the Romans.
Gades, defected to the Romans. Miles 2013 says that Gades surrendered, as does Briscoe in CAH2 p 60. Both cite Livy 28.36–37, which in translation also uses the word "surrendered" (in original deduntur). I certainly can see how that in context that could be a defection; but it doesn't seem anyone characterises it that specific way.
|orig-date=First published 1978
.
Ifly6 (
talk)
22:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ifly6 and thanks for that. Your comments to date all addressed and your next instalment awaited. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I do want to say very well done. The article is in almost infinitely better shape than it was when I edited it (very shortly) a mere five days ago. Wikipedia has no deadlines but it's always nice to see fast and competent work. Ifly6 ( talk) 22:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Ifly6 ( talk · contribs) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
(Criteria marked
are unassessed)
Will start actual line-by-line review soon. Ifly6 ( talk) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Pen & Sword is not an academic publisher.
Carey does not seem to be an expert on Roman warfare or on the period.
Similarly, Bagnall is a soldier.
Neither of these are part of the reliable peer reviewed scholarship.
Miles is fine, though I think RS would also prefer his academic publications over his Penguin ones.
(These are all suggestions and you can implement or ignore discretionarily. If there is anything truly important I will bold it.)
these are all suggestsion and you can implement or ignore discretionarily. My focus has always been on political culture, which perhaps may colour my remarks. If you think them perhaps too in-depth for a military history article, certainly make the point. Ifly6 ( talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
all but extinguishedseems like an exaggeration and seems inconsistent with the description of a commander, an area, etc below. Perhaps reword to
In 211 BC the Romans were defeated at battle of the Upper Baetis, reducing the Roman presence on the peninsula to a small territory in the north-east. I would also omit
(modern Spain and Portugal); you say it below anyway and I think readers can be expected to know what Iberia is.
personal ties [of future-Africanus] to native aristocratswhich is worth including.
When the Celtiberians deserted the Romansbetween
Celtiberiansand
deserted.
only a small strip of coastline north of the Ebroat your citation location. Zimmerman instead says at p 291
Rome's position [was]... thrown back to... 218.
Scipio commanded a total of 31,000 men: 28,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalryIs this a modern estimate or an ancient one? Who made it?
This division of Carthaginian forces in Iberia, to the extent that it was difficult for them to mutually support each other, ...perhaps
This division of Carthaginian forces made it difficult for them to support each other.with some splits in the run-on sentence.
Such a tactic could have led to an inconclusive campaign, at the end of which the Romans would have had to retreat...suggest
Lack of decision would have forced a Roman withdrawal after an inconclusive campaign, which would have negatively affected the reliability of Rome's Iberian allies.
The text of captions should not be specially formatted (with italics, for example), except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text) indicates that your image captions should not be centred. Re the image, consider citing Coarelli, F (2002). "I ritratti di 'Mario' e 'Silla' a Monaco e il sepolcro degli Scipioni". Eutopia. 2002 (1): 47–75. ISSN 1121-1628.
When he arrived in Iberia Scipio...
Scipio also reputedly learned details of how fordable the lagoon to the north was, in particular the effect of the tides and, possibly, the wind on it.
The story of the ebb of the water... is simply unhistorical.Note though that Richardson dismisses the received story of how NC was captured entirely – I agree with him here, handwavery about the wind also is not credible – and thinks it is a myth created to make SA look badass. But in this matter I may be more critical than most; perhaps say instead that Polyb and Appian assert tides and that Livy asserts wind. Ifly6 ( talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
He [Scipio] was aware [of insert details here]. I would rephrase in terms of [insert details] simply being the case.
second in command→
second-in-command. I would also mention his rank – praefectus classis – per MRR 1.288.
Goldsworthy 2004, p. ##, 449 n. 11, citing Polyb. 10.9.4–7 and Liv. 26.42.1is definitely how Wikipedia works. It is merely the full citation for where Goldsworthy found those numbers. I recommended a further dive into troop assessments because I don't believe the ancient sources' counts (exaggerated for commanders' benefit at the start; see eg Val Max 2.8.1 noting legislation by Cato requiring commanders to swear to the accuracy of their kill counts when returning to the city), as I felt it would improve the article. Ifly6 ( talk) 20:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not known at what point Scipio revealed their objective to his senior officers.
Nb I've also made a few grammar corrections here and there.
Goldsworthy 2004 p. 61seems like it should be
pp. 60–61.
As a historian, wanting to understand a tangential subject, if I find I'm reading a paper or encyclopedia article that doesn't at least show awareness of the primary sources, I stop reading and look for something better.
if there are no citations of primary sources, then, as Andrew points out, they will not value Wikipedia articles
a more pressing reason to offer citations to primary sources is as a service to our readers, who will then find reason to begin their research by reading/consulting the relevant articles on Wikipedia. Offering these helps our readers, reducing the time they need to track down information with links to these passages
near-contemporary and usually reliable Greek historian Polybiusat 43–44. Perhaps reword simply to Polyb says XYZ, Livy says ABC, etc.
What terms he was granted is not known: I don't see anything in Goldsworthy In the name... p. 65 talking about the lack of knowledge about the specific terms under which Mago surrendered.
10,000 Carthaginians→ 10,000 men or inhabitants (?), per Goldsworthy Fall p. 276: "Of the 10,000 men captured, the citizens were released, the non-citizen[s]... were made public slaves..."
The unexpected blow caused the Carthaginian generals to fall back on the defensive, continuing to disagree among themselves; although in total they far outnumbered the Romans, they made no attempt to combine their forces.Perhaps reword to The unexpected blow caused the Carthaginian generals to fall back on the defensive; continuing to disagree among themselves, they made no attempt to combine their forces even though in total they far outnumbered the Romans.
Gades, defected to the Romans. Miles 2013 says that Gades surrendered, as does Briscoe in CAH2 p 60. Both cite Livy 28.36–37, which in translation also uses the word "surrendered" (in original deduntur). I certainly can see how that in context that could be a defection; but it doesn't seem anyone characterises it that specific way.
|orig-date=First published 1978
.
Ifly6 (
talk)
22:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ifly6 and thanks for that. Your comments to date all addressed and your next instalment awaited. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I do want to say very well done. The article is in almost infinitely better shape than it was when I edited it (very shortly) a mere five days ago. Wikipedia has no deadlines but it's always nice to see fast and competent work. Ifly6 ( talk) 22:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)