Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Treaty of Lutatius

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Treaty of Lutatius[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Treaty of Lutatius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The peace treaty that ended the 27-year-long First Punic War. A departure for me, being the first time I have nominated a non-conflict higher than GAN, so I suspect that it needs lots of feedback. Relatively bite sized by my standards, so let me have your thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Pass alll images are free, appropriately sourced etc. buidhe 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass
  • Everything looks OK to me. No source checks done. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias[edit]

Right, I'll brush away the tumbleweed, and have a look.

  • Overall, I'm not convinced about the balance of the article. The lead, summarising the article gives about 20% of the word count to explaining the First Punic War. The article gives about 45% coverage to the First Punic War: while I agree that providing enough background to the treaty is necessary, I don't think that it is necessary to rehash the whole war in as much detail as is provided here. How much of what is provided is necessary context for the treaty?
Fair point. It is obviously a subjective judgement, but I do seem to have gone overboard. I have cut back, and tried to only detail events relevant to the treaty.
  • It seems odd that the coin image caption is left-aligned, when the rest are centred.
It is centered. Check the code. Not sure why it comes out like that.
  • What is the scope of "Romano-Greek history"? With no wikilink, I find this term unclear.
It's what the source says. I have tried a couple of more detailed phrases, but they look too much like OR, so I have removed it.
  • "..and the greatest naval war of the ancient world.." "greatest": largest, most impressive, most significant, best? It is a slightly ambiguous term in this context.
Switched to 'largest and longest'.
  • "..it was left to Gisco.." Wikilink Gisco.
Gah. And I created the article! Senility is a terrible thing.
  • "A commission of ten was.." Any more detail on this commission? One source I glanced at suggests that they were senators?
Well now, I have done a fair bit of research on this. Two learned texts simply say "ten commissioners"; Goldsworthy writes of "a senatorial commission" (not the same thing IMO as saying that all of its members were senators); three other good RSs mention the increase without detailing how it was negotiated/imposed; Hoyos says "ten special envoys ... senators no doubt" - which I take to mean that he is guessing. Then Ah ha! Rankov says " a commission of ten senators". Personally I am loath to cherry pick one source from eight to state in Wikipedia's voice that they were senators when it is not something that I need to make a decision about. Nor do I think it something where it is useful to go into all the detail so a reader can form their own opinion. Obviously, I am open to persuasion on either of those points.
Maybe use Goldsworthy's "senatorial commission"? It gives the reader some idea of the formation of it, at least. It's not going to affect my support given what you've said though. Harrias talk 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been suggested that this was to enable the money borrowed to build the recently victorious fleet could be promptly repaid." The grammar has gone a bit wrong here.
Indeed. "could" → 'to'.
  • Note 9 feels like it should be included in the main body of text, as it makes up part of the treaty.
Assuming you mean note 8, fair enough. Incorporated.
Yes. Inept placement of the link by me. Moved. (Is there too much detail on this war?)
  • "cynically stated" Has a hint of MOS:OPED without attribution.
Removed and added some direct quotes at the end of the paragraph.

That's it from me at the moment. Harrias talk 09:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. It was mostly me being lazy, and partly my being determined to find who said that the ten commissioners were all senators. Any hoo, all of your comments addressed above, see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I wonder if you feel able to support or oppose this nomination yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with it now. Harrias talk 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, sorry I don't know enough (anything) to comment on content or sources. I have a few minor comments/suggestions, though: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest splitting the first paragraph of the lead somewhere
Good point. Done.
  • It received its name --> suggest "The treaty received its name"
Done.
  • It has been suggested that --> "Goldsworthy suggests that..."? (attribute in text)?
Done.
  • the caption for "File:Stele des Polybios.jpg" probably needs attribution in text
It is attributed in text at first mention - "Dexter Hoyos describes him as "a remarkably well-informed, industrious, and insightful historian" " - and it seems unnecessary (to me) to reattribute at second mention.
Ok, no worries -- I'd missed that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest upscaling the maps a little
OK. Done. How do they look now on your screen?
Still a bit small, but I can live with it -- it's probably just me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • necessary to have another fleet built and manned --> "necessary to build and man another fleet"?
Done.
  • Casson, Erdkamp and Rankov aren't specifically cited, so might be better placed in a Further reading section
I am not sure how that happened. Thanks for picking it up. I have removed them entirely.
Thanks for that AR. Very helpful. I have addressed your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; added my support above. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

It's been a while since I read anything focused on this war, but I do have a passing familiarity with it. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • I'd suggest noting the date the treaty was agreed in the first sentence
Done.
  • "A commission of ten was sent to settle the matter." - what side were these people from?
Clarified.
  • "Polybius was an analytical historian and wherever possible personally interviewed participants in the events he wrote about" - given the time lag though, this is a bit confusing in this war as the participants would have all been dead. I'd suggest omitting at least the second half of this sentance
Fair point. I have taken out the whole sentence.
  • Can the decisive naval battle described in the para starting with 'In late 243 BC' be linked?
Oops. Done.

Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, thanks for that, all caught me dead to rights. Your points addressed above. How's it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look great, and I'm pleased to support this nomination Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • which ended the First Punic War after 23 years It's probably me but, I think this sentence is incomplete and I have the feeling "of fighting" should be included. It's probably optional but whatever.
One would say "The game ended after 90 minutes" without feeling a need to add "of play" because that would be assumed from the use of "game". No doubt you could think of lots of similar examples. Similarly IMO, the use of "War" would make adding 'of fighting' redundant, or (strictly IMO) a little clumsy. So I would prefer to leave it as it is.
  • Well, I do have the feeling to add them, of course, I'll blame my basic English classes in the past few years for tattooing this onto my brain. Cheers.
  • army commander on Sicily, Hamilcar Hamilcar's name is incomplete.
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
  • of 3,200 talents of silver – 82,000 kg (81 long tons) --> "of 3,200 talents of silver – 82,000 kilograms (81 long tons)"
Fixed.
  • of an additional 1,200 talent indemnity How much is 1,200 talent in metric and English units? Also this is a compound adjective.
Convertion added. I don't see the compound - could you point it out for me?
  • @Gog the Mild: As I look to the sentence, it might have to do with the "an additional" part. If it's not a compound adjective then I'd recommend adding an extra "s" behind the word talent. 'Cause it now looks like a typo.
No. You were right. 1,200 talent does need hyphenating. Done.
  • is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek A circa template is needed here.
You've lost me here. What is the problem with the circa templates I have used? They seem to present the information as the MoS would wish. But you have a more detailed knowledge of that than me.
  • Hm, it's quite strange here, I was sure the second circa hadn't a circa template, hm. I assume I was wrong. Cheers.
Ah ha! You have been working too hard. I suggest a nice quiet lie down in a dark room.
  • but he is known today for his The Histories Could be possibly me but the "his" looks and sounds really odd to me in this sentence.
I think it looks odd because it is followed by "The", which is unusual, but it is a correct construction. I have taken out "his", I think that a reader can work out from context who wrote it.
  • Exactly, I know it was a correct construction but indeed, both "his" and "the" aren't usual and might sound or read strangely. Well at least as a non-native English speaker it was strange, but, I don't know maybe you Brits doesn't see this strange or maybe a local dialect in the UK I don't know. I only can say for sure it looked strange to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Good spot. It reads more smoothly now.

Would continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that CPA-5. Good as always to have your beady eyes on my sloppy prose. Your points addressed and I am eagerly awaiting the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long tons is overlinked.
Fixed.
  • much of the coastal regions of North Africa Unlink North Africa; major geographic areas shouldn't be linked.
Done.
  • In 264 BC Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean Per Ngram pre-eminent is more commonly use.
Done.
  • had come to dominate southern Spain Because this is in the ancient world shouldn't it Hispania?
Done.
  • When Hamilcar Barca took command of the Carthaginians on Sicily in 247 BC he was only given a small army I believe a comma after BC. It's a pretty long sentence without semi-colon, comma or full stop.
Grudging done.
  • a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage Rome is too common to link.
Indeed. Stupid of me.
  • I see -ise in formalised and -ize in realizing?
Now "realising"; good spot.
  • After receiving the order to make peace, Hamilcar refused, claiming the surrender was unnecessary; it is possible that for political and prestige reasons Hamilcar did not wish to be associated with the treaty which formalised Carthage's defeat in the 23-year-long war. Could you split this?
Done.
  • of Lilybaeum, to broker the peace terms.[49][50][48] Re-order the citations here.
Done.
  • Gisco and Catulus agreed that Carthage would hand over what it still held of Sicily; release all Roman prisoners without ransom, although ransom would need to be paid to secure the release of prisoners held by the Romans; and pay an indemnity of 2,200 talents of silver – 57,000 kg (56 LT) – over 20 years Split this, use kilograms, and replace LT with long tons.
Not split; it's a list, appropriately semi-coloned and it seems entirely comprehensible to me. Kilograms and long tons.
  • with the additional 1,000 talents payable How much is 1,000 talents?
Added.
  • Eventually the troops mutinied and turned against Carthage Aren't mutineers always against their overlords? Maybe replace "turned against Carthage" to "fighting broke out"? Mutineers are not always as violent as most of think.
Good spot. Tweaked.
  • Rome for protection, which was refused.[59][56][60] Re-order the citations.
Done.
  • were added to the treaty as a codicil.[66][63] Same as above.
Done.
  • I'd like to have some more information about the aftermath in both Sardinia and Corsica.
A little added.
  • I'd also like know were there mutinies in Corica?
The sources don't mention any. (Which one would expect them to if there had been any, but, frankly, who knows.)
  • Note 4, 2,000 talents was approximately 52,000 kg (51 long tons) --> "2,000 talents was approximately 52,000 kilograms (51 long tons)"
Done.
  • Unlink the second time mentioned Gaius Lutatius Catulus, Carthage and Rome in the infobox.
Gah! Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: All done, including your follow up comments from your first installment. Thanks for that. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to move "File:Map_of_Rome_and_Carthage_at_the_start_of_the_Second_Punic_War" file a little bit down? I have the feeling it belongs in the aftermath section.
I could, and you are correct that that is where it really belongs, but it looks horrible - see here or here. Of the three, the current one seems the least bad. I am, obviously, open to discussion on this, it's a subjective issue.
  • They both look awful; I'm not really a fan and it's pretty strange to have an image in the wrong sentence. But I totally wouldn't support one of those corrections maybe within ten years or so, there would be a solution made by someone or Wikipedia.
  • After reading the "Talent" article I just realised there also were other talents types. Kinda like the modern-day tons or medieval measurement which differs from country or even region to region. For instead if Polybius wrote those measurements and he was a Greek does that mean he used "Attic talent" or "Aeginetan talent"? However he also could using Roman talents and in the "Evidence of Carthage's financial situation includes their request for a 2,000-talent loan from Ptolemaic Egypt, which was refused" sentence it could be Egyptian talents. Can you figure out which one are we talking about?
According to Lazenby, The First Punic War: A Military History, p. 158, it was Euboic talents in the case of the treaty. (For some information on this see the fifth sentence of Talent (measurement).) Having just checked five sources they are a bit vague on the Egyptian loan - which seems fair enough given that it didn't actually happen. There seems to be a feeling in the sources that the Carthaginians would have requested the loan in their own, familiar Euboic talents. 2,000 of these was 60,480 kg. If it had been Egyptian talents - which it probably wasn't - it would have been 54,000 kg. For something which didn't happen, they seem close enough to each other to me, even if the sources don't wish to categorically state that the request was in Euboic talents.
@CPA-5: Good points. Addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge Ancient History Part confirms that they were Euboic (they say "Euboeic") talents. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: That sounds great to hear. We do know the specific talents, that's great. I'm not really a fan of adding every talent in the article the word "Euboic"; I don't believe there is a policy here on Wikipedia and I don't think someone would complain. But we can add a note at their first appearance and note that this article uses Euboic talents. What do you think, unless there is a policy of course? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Yes, very well picked up. I am not aware of a policy. I have added a footnote by the first mention, to clarify for any aficionados of talents. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Treaty_of_Lutatius&oldid=991458555"