Talk:Battle of Bronkhorstspruit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBattle of Bronkhorstspruit is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 11, 2023Good article nomineeListed
April 12, 2023WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
May 13, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 23, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that within 15 minutes of the Battle of Bronkhorstspruit, all the British officers in the battle were either killed or seriously wounded?
Current status: Featured article

Untitled[edit]

Looks like a battle to me... why is this not at Battle of Bronkhorstpruit? Bastie 00:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

The tone of the article is anti-Boer through the use of weasel words. There are only two notes covering the first paragraph; one of which is anti-Boer. The rest is lacking sources. This sentence is offensive: This instruction came not from the lawful government, but from the self-proclaimed triumvirate who had declared the independence of the South African Republic when in fact the Transvaal was still under British administration. Try to insert that sentence in the article about the American Revolutionary War, and try to see how long it will remain. ... the self-proclaimed Congress in Philadelphia when in fact the colonies was still under British administration.

Also this: Ash remarks of the misuse of the white flag that it was something that would characterise the Boer approach to the conduct of war during the Second Anglo-Boer War, summing it up as a “the enemy must abide by the rules but we don’t have to” attitude. Without source! And again: He also states that loyalists in the Transvaal called it the Massacre of Bronkhorst Spruit. Of course they did! What do you think the loyalists of Massachusetts called the battles of Lexington and Concord. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I removed some of it, but there is still more. This article needs a deep rewrite, but I don't have the chops to do it. The "Massacre of Bronkhorst Spruit" comment should go in the first paragraph and should be a redirect target. I think I'll go change that before I move on. Rockphed (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking further at the history, it looks like most of the damage was done a couple months ago by a single editor who seems to have been POV pushing. Some, but not all, of their damage has since been removed. I think I will ask about rolling it back to before their edits. Rockphed (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internal inconsistency[edit]

Good morning all. I notice that "Within 15 minutes all of the officers had been killed or wounded" but "a Captain Elliot, was captured but was later one of two officers permitted to leave". Also "alleged misuse of the white flag" but with no indication of what that is supposed to have been. I will have a look at the possibly POV pushing edits mentioned above. Springnuts (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)#[reply]

Looking at the publisher's blurb for the Ash book and it is so POV as not to be, imo, a RS - for example "Over a century of Leftist bleating and insidious, self-serving revisionism, first by Afrikaner nationalists and then by the apartheid regime, has left the layman with a completely skewed view of the war. Incredibly, most people will tell you that the British attacked the Boers to steal their gold, ...". I will remove this material. Springnuts (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK this "While Anstruther was considering his predicament and the two-minute ultimatum ticked away, the Boer commando, under the protection of the white flag, approached the column to within 200 yards of the wagons and positioned themselves behind rocks and trees. According to witnesses, Anstruther replied: I have orders to proceed with all possible despatch to Pretoria and to Pretoria I am going, but tell the Commandant I have no wish to meet him in hostile spirit. As Anstruther made his comment of non-cooperation, the rider holding the white flag turned his horse and made a signal to the Boers, who immediately opened fire on the helpless and unsuspecting column.". - from [[1]]. .
Much more of a RS, I suspect, is this: [[2]] - Edward M. Spiers; 'Battling the Boers' in 'The Victorian soldier in Africa'. "Conductor Ralph Egerton (Army Service Corps), who was one of the more lucid commentators, had ridden ahead with the colonel and his adjutant, Lieutenant H. A. C. Harrison, to select a camping ground. When the band ceased playing, they turned around to see 150 armed, mounted Boers, spaced about ten paces apart, along a ridge on the left-hand side of the road. Egerton rode to meet a Boer horseman under a flag of truce, and took a sealed despatch from him to the colonel, who had dismounted. The despatch stated that the Transvaal had been declared a republic, and that any advance by the column beyond the spruit would be interpreted as a declaration of war. Given two minutes in which to reply, Anstruther insisted that he must follow orders and proceed towards Pretoria. The two parties returned to their respective forces, but the Boers, who had filtered through thorn bushes to about 200 yards from the column, opened fire before Anstruther rejoined his column.. Springnuts (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, fwiw, some OR: perfidy includes "the feigning of intent to negotiate under a flag of truce" - which does not seem to be the case here; and "inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead it to believe that it is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, ..." - which again isn't clearly the case here. [[3]]; [[4]]. But I cannot find any RS expressing a view with reference to this battle. Springnuts (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Bronkhorstspruit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 03:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    Since everything else (except 4 - see below) seems to be in order, I will be checking mainly for typos, hanging clauses, unclear sentences, etc. which I will list below.
    Review 1 comments are listed below. Please fix or argue your case for not fixing. Djmaschek (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Introduction, paragraph 1, sentence 2: Add comma after Transvaal.
    • Introduction, paragraph 2: "was ambushed" (It seems to me that "ambushed" is the wrong word; "confronted" seems better.)
    • Introduction, paragraph 2: "discontinued" (discontinue) "the two sides engaged" (A better description might be: "the Boers attacked").
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, for some reason I hadn't been able to find it. No idea how. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Background, paragraph 1: "The last of these despite" (The last of these annexations occurred despite)
    • I don't see a pressing need for it, but sure, it does no harm. Changed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Background, paragraph 2: "oppose the annexation and the reduction of the British garrison" (Unclear: Did the Liberals also oppose the reduction of the garrison or did they approve the reduction?)
    • Removed "and the reduction of the British garrison to two infantry battalions", at least for the time being. I can't for the life of me find which source this came from. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • British troop movement, paragraph 1: "wagons to acquired" (wagons to be acquired).
    • British troop movement, paragraph 1: Introduction says there were 34 wagons, so it needs to state that here, instead of "three times that number".
    • Changed to 34, but I'm not 100% happy with what it conveys. May tweak again before ACR. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • British troop movement, paragraph 2: The word "They" is used several times to describe Anstruther's column in this paragraph. Please first describe who "they" are. See next bullet.
    • British troop movement, paragraph 2, sentence 1: "they averaged" (Suggestion: Anstruther's men averaged/Anstruther's men and their dependents averaged).
    • Tweaked a few, let me know what you think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • British troop movement, paragraph 2: "remained their" (remained there).
    • British troop movement, paragraph 2: "agitate local sympathies" (sympathizers?).
    • British troop movement, paragraph 3: "the column were only carrying" (the soldiers were only carrying).
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boer commando: "on the 19 December" (on 19 December).
    • Opposing forces, paragraph 1: "uniforms, though it was phased out" (Plural: though they were phased out).
    • Yup, changed (I specifically had the red frock in my head, hence the singular. But yes. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opposing forces, paragraph 2: "area, could vary in number" (area, it could vary in number).
    • Changed instead to "which depending on the population of the area could vary in number widely". Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Battle, paragraph 3: "suffered light only light casualties" (remove first "light").
    • But they were really really light! (Yes, changed!) Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aftermath: "for tended to" (for tending to).
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    This article has had its POV challenged as anti-Boer. I will keep this in mind when reviewing it and suggest neutral edits if needed. My comment here is that a source may be obviously biased, but that does not necessarily mean that it should not be used. A biased source may accurately report some details.
    • I did not detect any un-neutral writing. If there was any, it may have been corrected. Djmaschek (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I used the framework of the original article, I essentially rewrote it completely, based on predominantly different sources. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Djmaschek: Thanks for the review. I had responded to each point above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: For some reason, I'm not seeing your latest corrections. I will wait a day and try again. Djmaschek (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Djmaschek: Ha, I never clicked 'Publish changes'! Thankfully, I hadn't closed the window, so I've just put it through now. What a fool! Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I still have a few comments. See next. Djmaschek (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro says Anstruther died of his wounds. Please include that in the narrative. I missed this on my first pass.
  • British troop movement: "the column averaged 9 miles (14 km) per day, but delays caused by river crossings and muddy trails meant they sometimes". What I tried to convey the first time was that the word "they" refers to "column" which is an "it". "They" would be appropriate if it referred to "soldiers" or "British", for example.
  • Oh yes, I see what you mean. Switched to "the British". Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing forces, paragraph 1: Actually, I like "uniforms, though the red coat was phased out" even better. The average reader may have missed the fact that the British were wearing bright red coats and could be reminded here. (It's OK the way it is.)
  • Expanded as suggested. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Djmaschek: Thanks for those, particularly the Anstruther one. I kept remembering I hadn't included it yet... and then kept forgetting to add it still! Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: GA class. Djmaschek (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Eddie891 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the Battle of Bronkhorstspruit was the first major engagement of the First Boer War? Source: Barthorp, Michael (1991). The Anglo-Boer Wars: the British and the Afrikaners, 1815–1902. Poole, England: Blandford Press. ISBN 0-7137-2131-6. Page 8.

Improved to Good Article status by Harrias (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 19:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of Bronkhorstspruit; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Recent GA, well written, comprehensive, and well referenced (AGF on offline sources). Referencing spotcheck on some online sources shows no copyvio issues. QPQ done. Hooks are interesting, but personally prefer ALT1. Good to go. Constantine ✍ 08:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Bronkhorstspruit&oldid=1205825545"