Talk:Battle of Adys

	Battle of Adys is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 19, 2022.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 2, 2020 Good article nominee Listed July 10, 2020 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 30, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after the Battle of Adys, the peace terms offered to the defeated Carthaginians were so harsh that they decided to fight on?
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: African / Roman & Byzantine / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Africa: Tunisia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (assessed as Low-importance). Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Phoenicia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Battle of Adys/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 14:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will start the review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mention Tipps's full name just as you did with Bagnall.

I would like to, but they don't ever seem to have published or been referred to as anything other than "G.K.". The internet simply doesn't have a full name.

• Note 5 is unrefenrenced.

Fixed.

• Did the battle take place in 255 BC or 256 BC? The infobox and lede contradict each other.

My typo. Apologies. Fixed. Thanks.

• "The Carthaginians pursuing chased the Roman force off the hill" - reword this sentence.

Done.

• The infobox claims that there were probably 15,000+ Carthaginians, this is not mentioned explicitly in the Armies section.

Amended to the correct figure of 16,000+. The armies section states "the Carthaginians fielded 100 elephants, 4,000 cavalry and 12,000 infantry". It seems insulting to the reader to add "which totals over 16,000."

--Catlemur (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catlemur, and many thanks for going through this. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism

   ):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Congratulations on another GA.--Catlemur (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks Catlemur, I appreciate the review. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I am 100% sure; the second "p. 15" in the "Hoyos 2007, p. 15; p.15, n. 1." citation is a repeat. On page 15 of the source I don't see "p 15. p. 15" can you pointed that out to me? If it's not a repeat what should it be considered then? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, usually a reference to a page excludes any footnotes on it. References to footnotes are indicated by giving the page number then the footnote number. In this case I want to refer to both a page, and a footnote (which happens to be on the same page. Hence "p. 15", meaning 'see page 15'; followed by "p. 15, n. 1", meaning 'also see footnote 1 on page 15'.

You write 'I don't see "p 15. p. 15"'. but I haven't written that - so I can't point it out. What I wrote is correctly copied by you in your first sentence - this is not me being awkward, the distinction is vital. (If I had written "p 15. p. 15" then you would be correct to query it.) I assume that if a citation read, say, 'Hoyos 2007, p. 156; p. 217, n. 2' you wouldn't have an issue with it?

I hope that this helps. As I wrote in the edit summary, I am certainly open to suggestions for alternative ways of communicating the information. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did a cheeky little post-furlough, drive-by ce; auto ed, cite scan, dupe wiki search, rm ref = harv as it's now redundant in the template structure, tidied the odd typo and grammatical solecism. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Searches are indicating that "Adis" is the common name (spelling) for the location and that "battle of A" (aggregating both spellings) should not be capped in prose per

"Battle" has been de-capped.

Checking the HQ RSs I have readily to hand, Tipps, Miles, Goldsworthy, Lazenby, Rankov and Scullard (the last in The Cambridge Ancient History) - all specialist historians of this period - use "Adys". The only HQ RS I can find using "Adis" is Bagnall. So there would seem to be a clear consensus in the HQ RSs to refer to this battle as Adys. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tunisian Republic location map Topographic.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Regulus became consul in 256 BCE, and his consulship was prorogued into 255 after the battle of Adys, which was the culmination of his winter fighting in north Africa, then surely the battle was in late 256 / early 255, not late 255.

Furthermore, his downfall to Xanthippus was in Spring of 255 BCE, according the wikipedia article about the battle of the Bagradas river, as well as the JSTOR article on the downfall of Regulus. I'm happy to be corrected if I've got the wrong end of the stick! Awoogamuffin (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awoogamuffin, you have a firm grip on the entirely correct end of the stick. What a stupid error - many thanks for picking it up. All, I hope, now sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]