# Talk:Hasdrubal, son of Hanno

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hasdrubal, son of Hanno/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 01:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Link city state in the lead?
Done.
Probably needs a hatnote to Hasdrubal.  None of the others are known as the "son of Hanno", but since there's so many with this name, the hatnote would probably be helpful.
You have gone technical here. I am but an ignorant content creator and do not always understand terminology.
" the Romans turned to fight - Optional - I know we have different ideas about MOS EGG, so this one's optional.  I'm just thinking maybe this whole phrase should be linked, although that's mostly because when I saw "turned to flight" linked, I assumed the link was to rout.  I can see either side of this one, so I guess I'm just really thinking out loud here
Done.
"and were joined by third general, Hamilcar," - by a third general
Done.
Through Battle of Tunis, I'll finish this off later. Hog Farm  Bacon 01:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Henceforth the Carthaginian approach was purely defensive,[91] The war ended nine years later in 241 BC with a Roman victory" - I'm assuming that the comma is supposed to be a full stop.
Aging eyesight. Fixed.
Refs in alphabetical order: you go Tipps, Walbank, Tipps, Walbank
The alphabet doesn't work like that where you live? Fixed.
Google is misspelled in the Warmington ref
All Google links removed.
The references all look reliable, and the image licensing looks acceptable.  Placing on hold. Hog Farm  Bacon 18:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hog Farm, swift work, thank you. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a layout thing, but there are only five notes; the default handling of single list works better than one or two wrapped per very short column. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi JHunterJ: and thanks for your other edits of this article. I assumed that this was your view, but it wasn't a careless revert by me. I honestly find the notes much easier to read in two columns, and if there are more than two I always 30em them. To date this is the first adverse comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
But your screen isn't the only layout, and on mine 30ems lands in 4 columns. There's a reason that the template defaults to one column for fewer than 10 entries, and to 30em for more. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Then you still get them in nice neat 30em columns, even if short ones; rather than sprawling across your screen. I usually check that the layout of articles "works" (obviously a subjective matter) on four devices and five screens prior to FACs, so I am aware of how this can change a fair bit between devices and screens. (I confess that I don't have a screen that will give four columns at 30em without making the text unreadable.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not find a single-entry super-short column set "nice neat", but "ugly squashed". That's a personal preference, like yours, but if every list always worked better in 30em for every reader, that'd be the template default. The default works for the bulk of the readership most of the time. See Template:Reflist#Customizing the view for customizing it for your display. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Response coming - I am mulling. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
JHunterJ: I have thought hard on this, but am unconvinced by your arguments.
1) If anyone much cared about this, there would be a policy or at least a guideline on it. Goodness knows they exist on enough other minutiae.
2) A quick check shows that I have had 30 em notes on ten of my last fifteen FACs; three also went through ACR. Which means that more than 100 of the pickiest Wikipedians you could imagine have taken a good, hard, critical look at articles with 30 em notes in. And none of them have made a comment. This is not from lack of caring about or looking for this sort of thing. There have been endless comments just about everything else; for example, about images: their position, sandwiches, size - with screen shots of how they look on their devices being emailed around.
3)A quick, non-random, check of six FAs not by me and each by a different editor turns up three using 30em or similar note formatting.
It would seem that I am not alone in either preferring, or not caring about, 30 em note formatting and that there is no consensus for the "default handling".
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
And I am unconvinced by your arguments. "This is the way I've always done it, and none of the reviewers commented on it either way" is not a guideline either, and the documentation for reflist specifies "Choose a width appropriate to the typical width of the references:
"Automatic columns (default when no width is specified): Where there are only a few Footnotes; see, e.g., Silver State Arena (23:05, 28 December 2012)
"30em: Where there are many footnotes plus a page-width Bibliography subsection: see, e.g., Ebola virus disease (02:02, 12 January 2018)
"20em: Where Shortened footnotes are used; see, e.g., NBR 224 and 420 Classes (13:32, 1 August 2011)."
So here, it says to choose the default. And other than your personal preference (which can and should be handled with Template:Reflist#Customizing the view), there's no reason to revert my change to the recommended default. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I made no suggestion that my prior experience was a guideline, please do not put words in my mouth. I note what you say about Template:Reflist. It would seem to be a question of what constitutes "few" and what "many". As in the examples given "few" is equated to 1 and "many" to 223 we only know that the dividing line is somewhere between these. It is my contention that I have only used 30em columns when I consider there to be many footnotes; I frequently go with the default: when I consider there to be few footnotes. I note in passing that when we are referring to explanatory notes, rather that references - as we are here - it seems reasonable to also take into account the aggregate length of the footnotes. I also note that Help:Footnotes, under "Reference lists: columns" states "The number of columns to use is up to the editor, but some major practices include:" (emphasis added); it then goes on to give the same examples as Template:Reflist. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@JHunterJ: I would be grateful if you would avoid making similar changes to my other articles while this discussion is ongoing; it comes across as impolite. And if the other article is featured could you discuss any such change on its talk page per WP:FAOWN. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This is not something to insist on, it is clearly left up to editors to decide. The documentation for the template isn't strictly worded, and the word "recommended" doesn't appear on the page. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead that says, "as was the Carthaginian custom after a defeat, Hasdrubal was recalled to Carthage to be executed" seems a bit odd to me. Of course, Carthage did execute him and others whom it deemed les incompetents, but I don't recall Polybius stating that it was a custom (someone correct me if I am wrong). Carthage often spared commanders like Hamilcar, who tried but lost due to the fog of war. Saying it was a custom seems to be feeding the "cruel Carthage" myth. Hmm? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you HalfdanRagnarsson, you are so right. It seems that taking the Roman "child sacrifice" propaganda seriously is, sadly, not the only modern reflection of the "cruel Carthage" myth :( פעמי-עליון (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)