Talk:Battle of Magersfontein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 4, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 11, 2016, December 11, 2018, and December 11, 2019.

GA[edit]

Thank you to everyone who has been helping to improve this long-neglected article. Any objections if I submit it for GA review? There's quite a backlog at the moment, so it will probably take up to 2 weeks to be revieed. PS: The Siege of Kimberley is already in the queue. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it still needs a bit of "tuning" - lets hold back for another one to two weeks till the end of vacations. Farawayman (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinon still needed are:

  • A bit more from the Boer perspective (but I have no sources - in fact I think there are very few published sources giving the Boer account of these battles);
  • I would like to check the whole article against the official history as documented by Maurice and to do the same for Creswicke's account of the battle - as there may be some interesting facts which we have not yet included.
  • I also think a better, more accurate map is called for. I have two detailed maps in Maurice's books, but they will take a bit of time to draw - and scanning is not an option as each map spans two pages! Farawayman (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
....two more issues: (
  • Who was "General A. Cronje"? Pieter Arnoldus Cronjé were the full names of "Piet Cronjé" - On the deployment maps, Maurice shows an A. Cronje as being in command of the forces on the northern side of the ridge. I wonder f this was not an error on the map, and that "A Conje" and "P Cronje" are in fact the same person - "P.A. Cronje?"
  • The sentence (under section Strategic consequences) that reads "....Cronje had temporarily defeated the British.." - Im not sure there is such a thing as a "temporary defeat" - I wrote it, but I'm uncertain how best to correct it! Farawayman (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Boer perspective will be generally available in (English) South African texts - however few, if any, of these are out of copyright yet, so online sources are scarce. Only know of one Boer general named Cronje, however the name is common, it might have been a Commandant under him. Yip, the Boers won the battle, but lost the war. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General Andries P. Cronje. As you say, the name is quite common, and to the best of my knowledge, they were distantly related if at all. Piet Cronje was captured at the Battle of Paardeberg and held prisoner on St. Helena; A. P. Cronje later surrendered, and joined a pro-British Boer force known as the National Scouts (Pakenham, p.542). On second thoughts, no. Checking through Kruger, Goodbye Dolly Grey, Andries Cronje was a General of the Orange Free State, not the Transvaal, and was in Natal at the time of Magersfontein. Kruger, pp.208, 216. HLGallon (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this text, they were brothers, both Boer generals, and both present at some point at Magersfontein. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates2008..... after a good proof read by another editor - and adding back the geo coordinates in the correct manner, I'm OK with it going for GA review now. Farawayman (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is missing the other side the story - there are a number of published Boer versions of the battle. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article status - Oct 2010[edit]

  • The Boer side of the story is still largely missing. The Jack Lane biography in the further reading section might offer some material as might Project Gutenberg.
    • Regarding Jack Lane, I would recommend that we steer away from primary sources in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. You have raised this issue before in a previous comment, but there is no official history from the side of the Boers and there are very few (if any) "Boer" secondary sources! So we have to rely on what has been published as reliable secondary sources, and regrettably, those sources tend to cover the British account in greater detail than that of the Boers. Take a look at the Gutenberg Bookshelf for the Boer War. Save for De Wet, there is not one "Boer" orientated secondary source! I will take a look at De Wet. If you have any definitive source in mind, please let me know and I will try to get hold of it. Farawayman (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked the De Wet documents, he took over command from De La Rey at Magersfontein on 16 December, so no relevant references to the battle. Farawayman (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems correct, on the 10 December he was still traveling from Elandslaagte in Natal to Bloemfontein.[1] Unlikely that he would have reached Magersfontein by the 11th. --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most Boer accounts of the battle will probably be written in Dutch/Afrikaans. Examples: [2], [3] --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First reference appears to be that of De Wet. Refer above comment regarding De Wet. Second reference is for J. H. Breytenbach. I didn't pay attention to the text, but the citations he uses are predominately to Maurice (Official British History of the War) which is one of the prime sources for the article. Breytenbach also frequently cites Baring-Pemberton: Battles of the Boer War. So I am not too certain that there is anything "Boer orientated" in there! But please assist if you can scour this reference for appropriate data to balance things more. Farawayman (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can read & write Afrikaans & Dutch fluently. In subsequent years, many of the Dutch sources were included in English texts, so later publications would probably help.
    • I am also a bit concerned at use of the Barbary, James (1975). The Boer War. Puffin Books reference. That's why I have not added the ISBN yet. Please check this ISBN and confirm that it is the correct one. Farawayman (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read some of the published works recently, I think that there are still sections that need to be fleshed out.
The model of the battle suggests that there's more to describe. I read that the Boers used black powder on the hills and smokeless powder in the trenches to complete the ruse. There's also some controversy over the use of trenches and barbed wire - that this battle set the scene for their subsequent use in WWI. Descriptions of the advance and action can be expanded me thinks - Maurice has a lengthly description that I'm sure you're already familiar with.
  • Wauchope might look better in black & white in the photo collage with the other leaders.
Did you notice that the colour picture was a hand-painted version of an original B&W photo? The re-touched image makes him look much younger and flattering. I've uploaded the original B&W that the artist used.
  • Why were the links in the references removed?
    • When the link is merely to a description of the book - there is no need for the link as well as an ISBN or OCLC - as the ISBN and / or OCLC automatically provide links to the same information. If the link is to actual scanned text of the book - then cite:book should not be used, but cite:web should be used instead. Farawayman (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe - but another school of though says the citation should show where the content came from - in some cases it was Google Books; this is why the cite book template has a URL field
  • Read somewhere that more ammunition was expended in this battle than any other of the war. Worthy of mention, or trivia?
  • Details of the different Highlander units involved in the attack, and what happened to each of them, are vague.
    • The Highland Battalions are all listed in the OOB. Similarly, there is a link to the specific Wiki article for each of the battalions. Where a Battalion was specifically involved in the action, it is referred to by name, and where it was generic participation, reference is made to the Highland Brigade. Give me some specific items which you believe we need to include?
Zoom in on the model; it's apparent that different battalions had different objectives and clashed with different groups of Boers on the day.

Farawayman (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle orders[edit]

I can't decide if this box works or not - feedback welcome... Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like the content, but not necessarily the format and the bunching of pics caused by the use of a frame! Farawayman (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have moved it - will follow consensus about whether it should stay or go. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

Time to nominate yet? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I think so, but why not go for A-Class? let's do it on Monday, allowing another once-over during the weekend. Can't do that now though. Rgds. Farawayman (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - submit whenever you're ready Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done the following:
  • Checked references for superfluous books. Commented them out of list.
  • Used "dablinks" - No disambiguation links on Battle of Magersfontein.
  • Checked all external links are valid and alive, result 100% correct, see Checklinks
  • Added and checked Alt-Text for all images
  • User contributions can be seen [[4]]
  • Traffic stats quite high in October, but that's probably because of our editing to get it to A-Class status - see [[5]]
  • Results from "auto peer review" can be seen here. Refer my comments on these below:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
I think our lead is OK. This is an auto comment based on the number of words, not on the content or quality!
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
OK, maybe valid. I will see where relevant links are needed.
Our links are fine. All units are linked via the OOB and we have not been repeating links, SO - I think its fine.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 7 cm, use 7 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7 cm.[?]
Not applicable, because we are using the CONVERT template which does not permit use of " "
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 7.7 cm.
Not applicable, see above comment.
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
Not applicable, we are not using "th" for dates - this is an auto search and its confusing formation and regiment names with dates!
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
Dont agree - headings cover the appropriate events or subject-matter. Reducing them will make the article less readable.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. correctly might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
We need to check this!
Checked - no "weaseling" found!

Farawayman (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Battle of Magersfontein.png is currently showing as a dead link in my browser. Doesn't look like the image has been changed, and it's broken for me on Commons too. Anyone else have this issue? Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Displays fine for me. Try purging the commons image and purging the article. --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rememberance[edit]

Should we include a short section on the museum, monuments and memorials that have been errected in rememberance of the battle? --NJR_ZA (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that we create a specific page for that, and then link from the battle page to the memorial page - they are actually two different topics. As an example, see Battle of Delville Wood and Delville Wood South African National Memorial. Farawayman (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that they would live in the Magersfontein article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 19:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with above! Farawayman (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'll get some info together and add it to Magersfontein. --NJR_ZA (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Structure?[edit]

Quote: " ++Aftermath++ +++Strategic consequences+++

Colonel John Henry Collier Coode, born June 9 1856, Hurryghur, Mysore, India. John was the son of John Penrose Coode (1821-1895. Served in the Madras India Army) and Emily Sarah Collier (1831-1913). Entered the Army as Sub-Lieutenant 73rd The Black Watch (Royal Highlands) Regiment on September 10 1875. Captain-April 17 1882. Major- August 1890. Lieut-Colonel-July 13 1898. Adjutant Auxiliary Forces-May 31 1884-May 30 1889. Served in South Africa War-1899. Died at Magersfontein, Modder River-December 11 1899. Friends with Captain Towell Cecil Underwood, R.N. [62]. "

How is this related to "Strategic consequences"?

This doesn't seem belong there.213.152.162.74 (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Magersfontein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Magersfontein&oldid=1191740993"