The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 3:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC) [1].
This article is one of the oldest Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. The lead is too short, many statements are uncited, and many references lack page numbers. Much of the sourcing is from old texts or primary sources, rather than up-to-date secondary ones. The original nominator hasn't edited since 2013. DrKay ( talk) 17:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply
It will be difficult to bring this article up to FA status. I've spent most of the last 6 hours since I saw DrKay's notice sizing up what it would take to do this, & maybe if one had two full-time weeks to read the necessary books & extract the needed information this could be done. But there are several clear issues. Here are some of my thoughts:
What is frustrating is that, IMHO, the bones of this article are fine. There are no errors of fact in this article that I can detect. But the fact this article is basically a paraphrase of Gregory Daly interpreting the primary sources does prevent this from serious consideration as a FA. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply
...exploring the details of the massacre [of the encircled Romans] might seem to serve little purpose beyond pandering to some bloodlust with a kind of pornography of violence. Yet war is truly terrible, and to turn our eyes away from its results is in itself an act of cowardice. Hannibal's great victory, his tactical masterpiece celebrated through the ages, produced, in the end, little more than corpses. ... As one source put it, "What remains unclear is how encircled troops, with nowhere to run, could be slaughtered in such a one-sided fashion."
Monstrelet comments
Overall, this seems to be a solid article. Main issue for me are
Placing Dudley Miles comments at top of FARC section - has outlined remaining issues. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply