Talk:Battle of Utica (203 BC)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 08:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

1
1.a Y

1.b Y
2
2.a Y

2.b Y

2.c Y

2.d Y
3
3.a Y

3.b Y
4
4.a Y
5
5.a Y
6
6.a Y

6.b Y

No DAB links Y
No dead links Y
No missing citations Y
Passes spot checks Y

Discussion[edit]

Prose Suggestions[edit]

Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.

Lede[edit]

Per MOS:LEDELENGTH there should be two to three pararaphs in lede, suggest merging the last two together.
by Publius Cornelius Scipio and allied Carthaginian and Numidian armies I think the word allied here actually adds to possible confusion, suggesting the Carthaginian and Numidian armies were at first allied with the Romans; I think removing it might make it more clear for readers.
while the Carthaginians were wary of Scipio's skill as a field commander and happy to wait for reinforcements suggest changing "happy to" to "decided to", seems more formal.

Siege of Utica[edit]

He knew that additional troops were being recruited in Iberia and was happy to pause hostilities until they joined his army suggest changing was happy to to decided to, per previous suggestion.
@Gog the Mild: That is all of my suggestions, passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Iazyges, especially for the sorely needed copy edit. My edits in response are [Battle of Utica (203 BC): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia here]. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]