Talk:Battle of Utica (203 BC)

	Battle of Utica (203 BC) 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 29, 2023 Good article nominee Listed February 27, 2023 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 14, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the 203 BC Battle of Utica was the turning point of the Second Punic War?
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 / European / Italian / 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 European military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) 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. Africa: Tunisia Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (assessed as Low-importance). 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 Utica (203 BC)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

Discussion

Prose Suggestions

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

• 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

• 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]