Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War)/archive1

Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War)

Featured article candidates/Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War)/archive1

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A vicious episode from a vicious war fought 2,266 years ago. War to the knife indeed. This went through GAN in 2020 and ACR in 2021. I have recently done a little tightening up and hope that it will not be too embarrassing at FAC. All and any constructive comments will be most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, Iazyges Pinging the ACR and GAN reviewers; it's been a while but it would be great if either of you felt like picking at the flaws I am sure still remain. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Mercenary_War_manoeuvres.svg: see MOS:COLOUR

File:Illustrations_pour_Salammbô_Poirson_Victor-Armand.jpeg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

A clear exposition of the topic, and plainly, to my thinking, of FA standard. A few very minor quibbles about the prose:

"Hamilcar and fellow general Hanno" – a false title we could do without.

Cast out.

"Initial manouevres" – spelling.

Picky.

"squeezing taxes out of the newly conquered territory in order to pay for both the war with Rome and his own campaigns" – I'm not one of those reviewers who have to get their smelling salts out at the sight of the phrase "in order to", but I really don't see what "in order to" has got here that plain "to" wouldn't have.

You are completely right. Sloppy proof reading I reckon.

"decided to wait until all of the troops had arrived" – Unclear what the superfluous "of" is adding to the sentence other than an unnecessary word.

The surplus of has been declared redundant.

"The majority of these foreigners were from North Africa" – this is Plain Words on "Majority": The major part or the majority ought not to be used when a plain most would meet the case. They should be reserved for occasions when the difference between a majority and a minority is significant. Thus: "Most of the members have been slack in their attendance". "The majority of members are likely to be against the proposal".

Ah. Well, by all means let us be stylish.

"Both Spain and Gaul provided experienced infantry; unarmoured troops who would charge ferociously" – the punctuation has gone awry. Instead of the semicolon you need either a colon or (preferably to my mind) a dash.

Dash inserted.

"Initial manouevres" – still misspelled.

I only see it once Tim. Are you referring to the ToC and the section heading?

I was. All now fine. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Utica and Hippo slew their Carthaginian garrisons" – "slew" seems a touch antiquated, and has nowadays a slightly comic Wodehousian air, as in "one of those fiends with hatchet who are always going about slaying six". Wouldn't a plain "killed" do?

Changed.

"but despite the siege being lifted ..." – another gerund problem. Grammatically, "being lifted" is serving as a verbal noun and this should be "despite the siege's being lifted". As that doesn't flow well, perhaps "but although the siege was lifted..."?

That doesn't really flow either. I am probably trying to pack too much into the sentence. Does "The supplies seized from the Carthaginian camp relieved the rebels immediate problems, but little further food arrived, despite the siege having been lifted." work?

Almost. "rebels" needs a possessive apostrophe, and there's still the gerund problem: "...despite the lifting of the siege" would work. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Tim. It is extremely good of you to drop by a mere elephant and sandal saga. I am grateful for your erudition and all of your points above have been addressed. The last issue could do with your eyes on again if you would. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. On rereading I wonder about "envisages" in the image caption in the Siege section. Seems a slightly odd verb. Portrays or depicts might be more usual. Not sure the caption needs a full stop, either. I don't press either point and am happy to support the promotion of the article to FA. Clear, balanced, well and widely sourced, suitably illustrated (excellent maps) – meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I reviewed this at GAN in 2020 and at ACR in 2021, but I will see if I can find anything else to comment on. Hog Farm _Talk 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"and Hippo (modern Bizerte)" - the link for Hippo just redirects to the Bizerte article; I don't know if both are useful

Supporting; this is my third time reviewing the article for different content levels and I have nothing further to add. Hog Farm _Talk 01:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges

Reviewed this at GAN in 2021. Although there are no double links or duplicate refs (which I can only view as a perfidious attempt to put me out of a job) I will see if I can find something else to complain about. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no further suggestions for the article; happy to support promotion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iazyges, that gave me a laugh. You sound upset. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome; I am of course pleased that my disastrous misfortune has brought you joy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you hadn't done such a good job in 2021 you'd be happier now. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from UC

Per WP:GNL, we should not use "men" as a synonym for "soldiers", "warriors", "fighters", "troops" etc. See in particular The sources are not clear as to whether they carried towers containing fighting men: we surely don't wish to imply that the sources suggest they may have carried fighting women? There are other examples throughout. In this particular context, it would be a strong assumption to say that none of the Gaulish, North Africa, Iberian etc tribes represented in the Carthaginian forces had any women fighting for them.

A combat force of this time and place is a case "where all referents are of one gender". HQ RSs support this: eg Miles, p 202 "menfolk"; Hoyos (2007), p 4 "twenty thousand and more men", p 36 "the men might refuse to leave their wives and children behind", p 58 quoting Polybius "mutinous men"; Bagnall p 112 "years of hard campaigning during which their carnal appetites had either been unrequited or forcefully satisfied", "asked to move their men"; and numerous other examples.

Regarding your strong assumption point, it seems to me to be a strong assumption to be to hypothesize that any women fought in a combat role at a time when gender roles were so separate. Do you have any sources that support the hypothesis of women in a combat role during the Mercenary War? Personally I find it much easier to imagine a boy smuggling themselves into an all-female school, or a student attending one identifying as male, yet "an all-female school" is used by GNL as an example of when "gender-neutral language ... does not apply". There would seem to be an implicit reasonableness test.

Of course, WP:GNL is an essay, one editor's view of how things should be, and as such sits outside the FA criteria.

It is, but MOS:GNL is, well, MoS, and so is part of the FA criteria. In particular, it has Use gender-neutral language ... if this can be done with clarity and precision. I'm not sure we lose any clarity or precision by swapping troops, mercenaries or similar for men. In several cases, the word can simply be cut altogether: for instance, At some point during 240 BC the Carthaginians raised another army, of approximately 10,000 ~~men~~

On it seems to me to be a strong assumption to be to hypothesize that any women fought in a combat role at a time when gender roles were so separate.: I don't think that's really true, certainly if you go beyond the immediately Greco-Roman world. Our article on the topic has its limitations, but we have plenty of examples of (in particular) queens leading their people in war in or around the C3rd BCE. Indeed, one of the consistent themes of Greco-Roman ethnography is that "other" peoples don't share "our" ideas of the roles of men and women. Again, there's a lot of ifs, buts and caveats there, but I find it difficult to read (for example) Herodotus and Tacitus and then say that it's manifestly obvious that every tribe in North Africa shared the Romans' idea of gender roles. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polybius says that they too "quickly" surrendered: consider a rephrase: did P. say they surrendered more quickly than they should, or that they surrendered, as did the others?

Rephrased. "... a few days ..."

Hi UL and thanks for dropping by. My thoughts on your thoughts above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Sources are consistently formatted, and seem to come from prominent authors/publishers. Checked some reviews too and nothing questionable cropped up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Why is it the city referred to a Tunis, when was Carthage stop being in common use? And why aren't the Carthaginians referred to as Tunisians? Sorry I have but superficial knowledge about North Africa and Carthage. 185.237.102.58 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and thanks for the input. Briefly: Carthage and Tunis were separate places, about 10 miles (16 km) apart; they are still separate places, see eg Google Maps, and still 10 mi apart. The Carthaginians belonged to Carthage or its empire, insofar as Tunisian meant anything 2,263 years ago it would have been a reference to an inhabitant of the (then) minor town of Tunis. Tunisia as a larger entity which one could be a member of didn't appear until around the year 800, more than 1,000 years after the events in this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox placeholder

I have been meaning to read one of your articles. Heartfox (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HF and thanks for that. This one is a bit gorier than usual I'm afraid, but hopefully interesting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead

Boo! Long time, no see, my old friend. You'll have to remind me to update you on my whereabouts: it's been a crazy few months! Now that everything's settled down again, I hope to return to my Wikipedia duties full-time again :) Comments to follow shortly! Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh! Gurgle. There may be a delay in responses from this editor while medical assistance is administered. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Hi Gog the Mild, hope you got the medical aid. My comments:

Link Carthaginian army in the body and lead to Military of Carthage?
What is our policy on DOIs? Since we have added one for Eckstein 2017, I think we should one for the others too (namely Hoyos 2007, Hoyos 2015, Koon 2015, Lazenby 1996 and Scullard 2006).
Consider adding [1] as the URL for Hoyos 2000?
What is our policy on linking editors? There is a page for both F. W. Walbank and Robert Maxwell Ogilvie.
Consider removing the "Inc." from Warnington 1993?

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]