Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shangani Patrol/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 20:05, 28 May 2012 [1].

Shangani Patrol[edit]

Shangani Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has just passed a GA review, which was taken by Dana boomer, who was complimentary of it. I believe that it is at least close to the standard required for featured status, and am therefore nominating it for consideration. I look forward to your comments! —Cliftonian (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, listen to this while reading ;) —Cliftonian (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers/journals
  • Okay.
  • Where is Rothersthorpe?
  • It's a suburb of Northampton, about four miles from the town centre. I've changed the location to "Northampton".

Support Comments - I did early work on the article, but Cliftonian recently did a major re-write that significantly improved the prose, comprehensiveness, and citations. The article is now very readable and engaging. Ctatkinson (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "fought over 3,000 Matabele": At this point, most readers won't know without clicking what "Matabele" means, so they might think the men were fighting over (i.e. contesting) 3000 of ... something. Also, reading quickly, I see "about 3,000" in the text and 3K-7K in the infobox ... which numbers have the best support in the sources?
  • 3,000. I've taken out the 7,000 figure; I originally had it there just to illustrate how the estimates vary. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, the payoff in the lead is this sentence: "The patrol's dramatic last stand achieved a prominent place in the British public imagination and, subsequently, in Rhodesian national history, roughly mirroring events such as the Alamo massacre or Custer's Last Stand in the United States." I get that you want to establish some context before saying this, but pushing it into the second paragraph is IMO burying the lead. I suggest you shorten the first paragraph enough so that you can afford to put the first paragraph break just after rather than just before this sentence. For instance, you could shorten "The Shangani Patrol, also known as Wilson's Patrol" to "The Shangani Patrol or Wilson's Patrol" or just "The Shangani Patrol", bolding "Wilson's Patrol" later in the lead.
  • "in Matabeleland, Rhodesia (today Zimbabwe)": "in Matabeleland in Rhodesia (today Zimbabwe)"
  • "an indaba": See WP:Checklist#clarity; I think this sentence will be too opaque for many readers unless they click, and most readers won't click.
  • "It evoked a confused, grammatically meandering answer from the king, written in English:": I'd just say "The king replied in English:"; it's probably sufficient that you call it an "ambiguity" immediately after. The message was: "I have heard all that you have said, so I will come, but let me to ask you where are all my men which I have sent to the Cape, such as Maffett and Jonny and James, and after that the three men – Gobogobo, Mantose and Goebo – whom I sent. If I do come where will I get a house for me as all my houses is burn down, and also as soon as my men come which I have sent then I will come." I've seen worse, in Wikipedia in fact. It seems pretty clear that this is a negotiation, that the king is saying that he needs some kind of safe haven and he wants to see his men ... It's not Standard English in the UK, but for all I know, it was Standard English in Matabeleland. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, everything looks good down to where I stopped, Shangani Patrol#Prelude: Forbes' pursuit of Lobengula, except I don't follow "comprising 34 British South Africa Company soldiers" but "The patrol comprised elements of the British South Africa Company's Police and the Bechuanaland Border Police"; the second seems to say that some of the 34 were not in the British South Africa Company. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit this is confusing. The British South Africa Company's Police (BSACP) was the direct arm of the company, whereas the Bechuanaland Border Police (BBP) was a separate body run from Bechuanaland. However, they often worked together, and men from one often served under officers from the other. In this case you have a company column augmented by the presence some BBP men and some of Raaff's Rangers (none of Raaff's men went with Wilson). Although the BBP men were not technically "in the British South Africa Company", they were in the service of the company at the time of their death, as I previously had the first line written, but this seemed a little wordy. I'll put it back now. Better? —Cliftonian (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Thanks for the review so far, I'm sorry if I have seemed a little short in my answers, it's not deliberate. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. I'm trying to recruit people to help with copyediting; whether I succeed or not, I'll be back before this is done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. Search through for a comma following by double quote marks, and if the comma didn't appear in the original, move it outside the quote marks per WP:LQ.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As is always the case with Cliftonian's work, this is an excellent article. I enjoyed reading it, and think that it's close to FA class. My comments are:

  • The first or second paragraphs of the lead should provide some background on the war (only a sentence or two)
  • A little bit more 'big picture' background is needed in the first paragraph of the 'background' section
  • I've put another paragraph in there. What do you think? —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based up" is awkward
  • Translations/explanations of "impi" and "laager" are needed
  • I don't think that "parley" is being used correctly - this is normally an informal negotiation during a ceasefire between two warring parties.
  • Okay, have put "Wilson conferred with his officers" instead —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 'pioneers' a neutral term? 'Invaders' would also be apt (but also non-neutral!). I'd suggest using 'Whites' or similar.
  • I'd consider "pioneer" a neutral term myself, but I don't want to make a big deal of an issue we can easily circumvent. Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Men of the Shangani Patrol' section belongs on Wikisource, not here. It's obviously non-neutral naming all the members of one side of the battle and not the other side, and their names are unnecessary.
  • I'm not overly familiar with how Wikisource works. Do you think you could help me with transferring this to Wikisource? I'm not certain of the proper way to do it. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not that familiar with how you upload stuff there to be honest. I think that you just log in (your Wikipedia user name and password should carry across automatically) and then post the material in the same way as starting an article. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that "indubitably" should be replaced with a less-obscure term Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words and the comments, Nick. I've replied to each comment individually above. I hope I've resolved the issues you pulled up. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my above comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – comprehensive, good prose, well referenced, balanced, appropriately illustrated. Three minor points, none of which affect my support:

  • Background
  • Some people (not me) get very aerated when the phrase "Union Jack" is used instead of the formally correct "Union Flag".
  • "Union Jack" is more clear, I often find, for international readers, but if this is pulled up again I have no problem with changing it. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prelude: Forbes' pursuit of Lobengula
  • I think your double image of Wilson and Borrow would look better if you cropped Borrow to the same proportions as Wilson.
  • Cultural impact, burial and memorial
  • Length of the run of Cheer, Boys, Cheer: the "two years" claimed for it is either too long or too short, depending on how you look at it. According to the archives of The Times and The Observer the piece opened on 19 September 1895 at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and transferred to the Olympic Theatre on 19 December 1895 where it finished its London run on 29 February 1896. (ref "Today", The Times 19 September 1895, p. 3; "At the Play", The Observer, 22 December 1895, p. 6; and "Olympic Theatre", The Times, 24 February 1896, p. 8). The production then toured the provinces; the latest presentation I can find is at the Queen's Theatre, Manchester in October 1898. (ref "Queen's Theatre – Cheer, Boys, Cheer", The Manchester Guardian 4 October 1898, p. 8). Safest to say something like, "The production ran for nearly six months in London, and then toured the British provinces for more than two years." – Tim riley (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: my only two minor quibbles are both in the intro, "ambushed by a host of Matabele riflemen and warriors near the king's wagon" - I'm assuming "the king's wagon" is a location? "anniversary of the battle on 4 December 1893 became an annual public holiday two years later" could be clearer that this refers only to Rhodesia as earlier there was a mention of "achieved a prominent place in the British public imagination", but overall a good effort IMHO. --Thefrood (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thefrood. "The king's wagon" is the wagon which the king used to travel around. The other one I've changed. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got that it was referring to the Matabele King (the previous sentence implies that it the Matabele King). I just thought it could be clearer, that said it really is a jolly good article and you have my full support. --Thefrood (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A truly great article. Well done. One question: Many readers will read only the lead section. As written now, it gives the impression that the noble Patrol was somehow victimized by ruthless opponents. The lead contains words such as "heroes" "annihilated" "last stand" "fighting to the last cartridge" ... the lead may give some readers a slightly hagiographic portrayal of the patrol. Is it possible to give these "lead only" readers a bit more context by adding a sentence into the lead which indicates that the BSA was also fairly agressive earlier in the war? Specifically, add a sentence in the lead that says something like: "Two months before the ambush, the BSA forces used machine guns to kill 2,500 Matabele warriors ...". [I'm just guessing on the numbers and dates]. Without such context, which may illustrate why the Matabele were so forceful in the ambush, the lead is not as complete as it could be. Otherwise, a fine article! --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the suggestion. I must say that I fear you are opening the proverbial can of worms with this one. Are you proposing the BSACP might have not used their superior weapons to drive off the numerically-superior Matabele when attacked previously? They were, of course, aggressively moving towards Bulawayo, but this is, so far as I can see, lightly implied in the lead ("... following his [Lobengula's] flight ..."). The lead also makes clear that the actions took place "during the First Matabele War", and in any war both sides can be generally considered to be acting aggressively in some manner, no matter what one's personal sympathies are. I think that including a sentence in the lead along the lines you are suggesting could perhaps mislead some casual readers into believing that the patrol was somehow ambushed in retaliation for the unprovoked massacre of Matabele warriors outside of a battle setting. In any case, I think that adding the necessary material to the lead would necessitate the addition of so much extra verbiage to establish proper context that I fear it would make the lead section rather unbalanced. I apologise if I seem blunt or intransigent. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your expertise in the technical material ... I concede I know nothing about the war. My point is simply that the lead appears to be written from an Anglo/white point of view. Granted, the lead may reflect what the prominent English-language sources write, but what do the African sources say about the patrol? (apologies if that was asked and answered above). Do African sources view the patrol's extermination as retribution for prior battles? Do they view the M warriors as "heroes"? If so, why is that not mentioned? Of course, I'm not suggesting that you should engage in OR or supposition, but the lead appears to be one sided. --Noleander (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matabele sources (independent of each other) appear quite agreed that the patrol's men were exceedingly brave. They don't appear to view the patrol's "extermination" (as you put it) as retribution for anything, it is merely described as a "battle" or similar. They don't use words like that to describe any of their own men, probably because they had standards regarding bravery and so on that were already very high, and so conversely it would be under-performance that would be more likely to draw comment (perhaps tellingly, M'Kotchwana, a warrior from the Ingubo Regiment, says in his account that following the battle with the Shangani Patrol, Lobengula became angry when told that all of his regiments had fought equally well; he had been expecting his favoured Imbezu Regiment to far outperform the rest of the army). This is what springs to mind off the top of my head, but if you wish I can do a more thorough analysis. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it sounds like there is no POV issue. I hope you don't think I was criticizing your editing work: I just wanted to make sure all the bases were covered. Thanks for your responses. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry at all, I did not think anything of that sort. Thanks for your thoughts and comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi Cliftonian, lots of support above but:

  • Has there been an image check?
  • Can you point me to a source spotcheck at one of your recent FACs? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an image check at the GA review. For spotchecks at recent FACs, see here and here (this second one points you to the GA review, which is here). Tim riley has offered on my talk page to do a source review on this latest article, if this would be helpful too? Thanks. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those others help, but if Tim has offered to do one here, I think it would be churlish to refuse... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check

Is this sample of 44 citations big enough? Most of the books referenced would take at least 48 hours to get hold of. I have here confined myself to those on immediate access at the British Library today.

  • First few refs
    • ref 1 – fine
    • ref 2 a–d – fine so far as O'Reilly and History Society of Zimbabwe are concerned; haven't seen the other two sources
    • ref 3 – a–j all fine
    • ref 4 – The British Library, if you please, can't find either of its two copies of Burnham 1926, so I haven't checked this
  • O'Reilly citations:
    • ref 30 – I can't find the quotation attributed to p. 74
    • ref 36 – fine
    • ref 44 – fine
    • ref 71a – is on p. 77, not p. 76 (in the British Library's copy, at any rate)
    • ref 71b & 71c – fine
  • Gale 1958 citations
    • ref 19 – fine
    • ref 35 – please check the page range: if you make it "151–154" rather than "153–156" it will accurately reflect the page numbers in the copy before me. (35a is on p. 151, b, c and d are on p. 152. 35e is fine. But perhaps we're working off different editions: I see there was a second impression in 1959. At any event, all the statements attributed to Gale 1958 are accurately represented in the article.
    • ref 45a – should be p. 155; 45b–i are fine.
  • Knight citations
    • 13a–d all fine
  • Forbes, Henty and Griffiths citations
    • ref 32 – fine
    • ref 38 – fine
    • ref 39 – as far as I can see it doesn't specifically say what you say, but the conclusion is inescapable in any case.
    • ref 68 – fine

Let me know if more is needed. I propose to be back here in the British Library on Thursday or Friday, so could order the books stored offsite in time for delivery by then. – Tim riley (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that's sufficient coverage, thanks Tim. We'll just give Cliftonian a chance to respond to those points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've fixed all of the page numbers as given above. I'm not sure what happened with ref 30, as I have just looked again and you are right that it doesn't actually appear to be there, so I've taken it out. I can only assume I got O'Reilly mixed up with another source which slips my mind at present? I don't know. But it appears we are okay otherwise. Thanks Tim. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps not my place to say so here, but while doing the spot check I was struck by Cliftonian's synthesis of sources, from weighty Victorian surveys (I staggered under the tonnage of the three volumes of Forbes, Henty and Griffiths that the BL gratuitously dug out for me) to sassy but scholarly books like Knight. It isn't just the depth (which we expect at FAC) but the breadth of Cliftonian's research that has impressed me. Just my two penn'orth. Tim riley (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words Tim, and thank you again for helping with the source spot-check. As always it's a pleasure. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Shangani_Patrol/archive1&oldid=1138471262"