49:
593:, thanks; you put a lot of work into these reviews, and I appreciate it. On a separate note, may I ask your advice? This article has been a little "bricks without straw", there is so little information on the battle in the primary sources. Would you advise that I leave it as a GA, or is there enough meat on the bones for it to have a chance at ACR, or even FAC?
611:
195:
614:. A potential problem I see might be that the storm is also really only covered in this article, so there might be some expansion possible there? You could also consider adding a bit more about how little the battle is covered, that's what DeSantis (linked above) seems to mostly talk about when he's not rambling about his own theories.
433:
I am quoting a source. Where do you get 95,000 from. (This is not the same size fleet as the previous year and was carrying an unknown number of captured
Carthaginian rowers. An OR calculation gives 384 times (300 plus 120) equals 161,000 as an upper limit. And 384 x 340 = 130,000 as a lower. So I
456:
I'm confused about the dashes here: "rs of
Regulus's army – and 70,000 rowers and crew – with". As I understand it, those dashes are essentially parenthesis, meaning you have written "rs of Regulus's army (and 70,000 rowers and crew) with" which would imply that the 'survivors of Regulus's army'
610:, That's a hard one, I'd definitely say it's borderline, particularly because as you say there's so little written on it. What I gained from a bit of scouring the internet is that there really isn't much that's not mentioned in the article; apparently Polybius just says the Carthaginians
640:
As an aside, keep your eyes open for Fabian Ware; I can feel this is the week he's going to be ready for ACR. Just need to finish my book (that just arrived-- only a week and a half late!) and double check all the sources and read through the article again.
309:. I am sure that their reasoning is sound. So I decided to stop pushing my personal preference to link it and, just this once, prophylactically unlink it. Now linked. If I take this to ACR, I imagine that I shall be asked to unlink it.
395:"At least half of the oarsmen would need to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively." maybe "At least half of the oarsmen needed to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively."?
54:
526:, I think that's pretty much it. Your coordinates go to a spot on land? Other then that, I'm satisfied that the article is well written, reasonably comprehensive, well referenced and otherwise meets the GA criteria
272:"What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known" maybe "Whether there were Roman losses is not known" or "Any Roman losses are not known"-- I just think the ', if any,' is an unnecessary break
619:
But I'd reckon you could squeeze an ACR and maybe FAC through as long as it incorporates all historiography available, seems like there is just enough in the article. There are certainly
59:
279:
I am trying to say too things here. I could express it more wordily, but would rather not. Is it a question of your not understanding, or of finding the term a little clunky?
87:
133:
77:
129:
335:"naval experience prior to the First Punic War" might be useful to remind readers what this sentence refers to, and clarify that it isn't just more background?
114:
17:
106:
471:"Polybius is critical of what he considers the poor judgement and poor seamanship displayed." is he referring to the battle or the storm?
350:"was the workhorse"? I know 'provided the' is used by some authors, but 'was the' seems to be far more common from a quick google search
82:
648:
579:
533:
491:
179:
163:
632:
122:
426:"25,000 soldierswho would have included many of the survivors of Regulus's army and 70,000" I only count... 95,000?
99:
654:
602:
585:
564:
539:
518:
497:
208:
185:
167:
626:
598:
560:
514:
204:
320:
be useful to clarify that he's a modern expert and not a Roman expert or even like a medieval expert?
157:
23:
607:
594:
569:
556:
523:
510:
378:
does ubiquitous need a wt link? I'd think it's a rather common word-- one might even say it's
200:
258:"The Carthaginians had 114 of their ships were captured," 'had' vs 'were', one has got to go?
552:
291:
287:
642:
590:
573:
546:
527:
506:
485:
388:
In another review I was specifically asked to link it. I agree with you, so unlinked.
238:
173:
153:
551:
Thanks Eddie. Maybe the shoreline changed? (My, accurate, coordinates for the naval
623:
509:; your usual top quality review. Your first pass comments all addressed above.
620:
302:
629:
220:
Link the "failed invasion of the
Carthaginian homeland" in the lede?
301:*Rolls eyes* Because my last seven FACs/ACRs have been reviewed by
306:
484:
That's it for a first pass, may have more later... Nicely done.
227:
Link it to what? (There is no separate article on the invasion.
141:
110:
572:, alright, I'm now happy to promote to GA. Nice work!
419:
Gah! I can't believe that I did that! Too close. Done.
364:"are also occasionally mentioned" mentioned where?
434:suspect that the sources are being conservative.
349:"The quinquereme provided the workhorse" -: -->
555:are, now, ten miles inland.) Tweaked. Better?
8:
441:"with probably many of these being" -: -->
409:You should probably describe and link the
37:
18:Talk:Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC)
68:
40:
7:
442:"with many of these probably being"?
192:
286:"Greek and Latin sources" why link
31:
457:were Carthaginians taken captive?
316:"The galley expert John Coates "
251:tl is Tagalog. Wrapped in Arabic.
193:
24:Talk:Battle of Cape Hermaeum/GA1
334:"prior naval experience" -: -->
1:
234:"Ras ed-Dar" should this use
191:15 minutes! You're slipping
464:I have repuncuated. Better?
683:
655:14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
603:13:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
586:13:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
565:10:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
540:23:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
519:12:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
498:13:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
305:who asked me to unlink
209:18:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
186:18:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
168:18:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
478:Good point. Clarified.
612:presented no problem
172:I can take this one
505:Thanks once again
653:
584:
538:
496:
184:
96:
95:
22:(Redirected from
674:
645:
576:
550:
530:
488:
243:
237:
198:
197:
196:
176:
146:
137:
118:
50:Copyvio detector
38:
27:
682:
681:
677:
676:
675:
673:
672:
671:
651:
582:
553:Battle of Sluys
544:
536:
494:
241:
235:
217:
194:
182:
127:
104:
98:
92:
64:
36:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
680:
678:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
647:
638:
636:
617:
615:
578:
532:
490:
482:
481:
480:
479:
473:
472:
468:
467:
466:
465:
459:
458:
453:
452:
451:
450:
444:
443:
438:
437:
436:
435:
428:
427:
423:
422:
421:
420:
414:
413:
406:
405:
404:
403:
397:
396:
392:
391:
390:
389:
383:
382:
375:
374:
373:
372:
366:
365:
361:
360:
359:
358:
352:
351:
346:
345:
344:
343:
337:
336:
331:
330:
329:
328:
322:
321:
313:
312:
311:
310:
296:
295:
292:Latin language
288:Greek language
283:
282:
281:
280:
274:
273:
269:
268:
267:
266:
260:
259:
255:
254:
253:
252:
246:
245:
231:
230:
229:
228:
222:
221:
216:
213:
212:
211:
178:
147:
94:
93:
91:
90:
85:
80:
74:
71:
70:
66:
65:
63:
62:
60:External links
57:
52:
46:
43:
42:
35:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
679:
656:
652:
650:
644:
639:
637:
634:
631:
628:
625:
622:
618:
616:
613:
609:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
592:
589:
588:
587:
583:
581:
575:
571:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
554:
548:
543:
542:
541:
537:
535:
529:
525:
522:
521:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
495:
493:
487:
477:
476:
475:
474:
470:
469:
463:
462:
461:
460:
455:
454:
449:Better; done.
448:
447:
446:
445:
440:
439:
432:
431:
430:
429:
425:
424:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
408:
407:
401:
400:
399:
398:
394:
393:
387:
386:
385:
384:
381:
377:
376:
370:
369:
368:
367:
363:
362:
356:
355:
354:
353:
348:
347:
341:
340:
339:
338:
333:
332:
326:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
314:
308:
304:
300:
299:
298:
297:
293:
289:
285:
284:
278:
277:
276:
275:
271:
270:
264:
263:
262:
261:
257:
256:
250:
249:
248:
247:
240:
233:
232:
226:
225:
224:
223:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
190:
189:
188:
187:
183:
181:
175:
170:
169:
165:
162:
159:
155:
152:
148:
145:
144:
140:
135:
131:
126:
125:
121:
116:
112:
108:
103:
102:
89:
86:
84:
81:
79:
76:
75:
73:
72:
67:
61:
58:
56:
53:
51:
48:
47:
45:
44:
39:
33:
25:
19:
646:
608:Gog the Mild
595:Gog the Mild
577:
570:Gog the Mild
557:Gog the Mild
531:
524:Gog the Mild
511:Gog the Mild
489:
483:
410:
379:
317:
201:Gog the Mild
177:
171:
160:
150:
149:
142:
138:
124:Article talk
123:
119:
100:
97:
88:Instructions
111:visual edit
380:ubiquitous
265:Very true.
55:Authorship
41:GA toolbox
635:the star.
151:Reviewer:
78:Templates
69:Reviewing
34:GA Review
643:Eddie891
624:articles
591:Eddie891
574:Eddie891
547:Eddie891
528:Eddie891
486:Eddie891
290:but not
215:Comments
174:Eddie891
164:contribs
154:Eddie891
83:Criteria
621:shorter
134:history
115:history
101:Article
633:gotten
411:corvus
371:Fixed.
507:Eddie
402:Done.
357:Done.
342:Done.
327:Done.
318:might
307:Latin
303:CPA-5
143:Watch
16:<
649:Work
630:have
627:that
599:talk
580:Work
561:talk
534:Work
515:talk
492:Work
239:lang
205:talk
180:Work
158:talk
130:edit
107:edit
601:)
563:)
517:)
242:}}
236:{{
207:)
199:.
166:)
132:|
113:|
109:|
597:(
559:(
549::
545:@
513:(
294:?
244:?
203:(
161:·
156:(
139:·
136:)
128:(
120:·
117:)
105:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.