Talk:Battle of Cabala

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Carthaginians faked agreement with a peace deal after a battle to train their surviving forces for the next one?

Source: [1]

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pope Leo XIV childhood home

5x expanded by History6042 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

~~On it.~~ — LlywelynII 09:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly good: New enough (5x 1 Aug 2025); long enough (3.4k characters); still classified as a stub based on a wonky template on the talk page (fixt); pretty well sourced (but see below); pretty neutral (but see below); no plagiarism per Earwig; no pic; AGF, QPQ done; hook seems like an awkward way to phrase "lied about" but semi-interesting, right length (132 chars), and kinda cited (see below).
The easy problems: As with the hook (fixt), there are several grammar problems—mostly dealing with commas—and a few misspellings. I can probably fix those myself without impacting the article at all. [edit: Done.] Also, (a) the actual sentences the hook is describing aren't directly cited to anything; the next cites in the text aren't to the source being provided above; and the source provided above doesn't say anything about "in secret". That should be simple enough for OP to fix, assuming someone said something on topic in the other sources. Alternatively, it should be easy to come up with some other more easily cited (and possibly more interesting) ALT hooks like Mago II dying in battle but his son succeeding immediately thereafter.
The bigger problems: Per the publisher, Montagu is/was a physician who happens/happened to dabble in classical history in retirement. He's a reliable enough source for cribbing what Diodorus said but he's not reliable for analyzing it and doesn't seem to bother. He's just repeating Diodorus's judgments about (e.g.) people's motives and reasoning. That's fine too but (b) the article can't phrase those judgments as objective facts. That'll require some rewriting. If this is all entirely based on Diodorus's unreliable narrative, simply phrasing everything to explain that would cover it. (See WP:PRIMARY.) If there are multiple sources, it might be trickier judging who's more reliable, if the later ones are just repeating the earlier ones, etc. Another bit that will require some work is whatever happened to the strength numbers in the infobox. (c) The numbers don't match the running text, they don't add up to the totals provided, and they don't seem to have room for any assumed additional lightly armed footmen to round out the numbers. (I'm assuming the armies aren't supposed to have had 10–20k entirely unarmed 'combatants'.) (d) The date in the running text doesn't match the date in the infobox either: XXX BC ≠ circa XXX BC. It's one or the other and should be consistent (and accurate) throughout. It should also match the timing at Mago II of Carthage, Mago III of Carthage, Battle of Cronium, and Sicilian Wars... most of which currently seem slightly off one another. (If the issue is problems with Olympiad dating on a lunisolar calendar or something, it's fine to have a reliable source that chose one year or the other. If that's impossible, it's better to provide the exact possible range of 378/9 BC or 379/80 BC instead of a much vaguer circa date.) Finally, (e) the current article doesn't match the content at our article on the Sicilian Wars, which calls the conflict the 4th war (versus Montagu's 3rd or the article's general "Sicilian Wars"), says the conflict started years earlier (versus 'looking for an opening for hostilities'), and says the Carthaginians were putting down revolts &c. for years versus the current phrasing in the article that makes Cronium seem to come close on the heels of Cabala. Fixing those mismatches might require repairing this article, repairing the other article, or even finding additional secondary sources to figure out who's right and why (assuming Montagu's accurately describing what Diodorus wrote) Diodorus was off on those details. — LlywelynII 12:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LlywelynII:

Standardize date: Done
Fix force counts: Done
Fix prelude section: Done
Add in text attributions: Done
The easy problems: Question: I do not understand what you mean by " actual sentences the hook is describing aren't directly cited to anything; the next cites in the text aren't to the source being provided above;" History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History6042: Historically, my overly persnickety reviewers have insisted on the bits of the article matching the hook—for this case, bits of things stretching from "The Carthaginian forces sent..." to "...for a future battle"—having a direct cite immediately after the relevant sentences. I don't think that's actually necessary but parts of the next cites in the article (assumed to cover all the preceding sentences) don't line up with the cite given here. That's not dispositive either, but it is something to avoid if you're doing a bunch of these. ("Easy problems", at least for this review.)

The lingering issues are (i) the date that got standardized

Done still doesn't match our articles on the war itself or the participants. That's fine but go ahead and provide the WP:RS you're using for it so other editors know where it's coming from. (ii) the Well, nevermind. Looks like the hook got edited to cut out that "in secret" bit. Just give a source for the date you're using—ideally in the section on the battle—and you're good to go. — LlywelynII 05:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the MOontagu source, [2]. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added in cites. G2G. — LlywelynII 02:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]