Talk:Southern Rhodesia in World War I/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 08:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll read through today and start the review proper tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks bru —Cliftonian (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. In terms of the GA standards, looks almost there - two minor points below and we're sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I hope this is okay now, thanks —Cliftonian (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• "Trench warfare was a dreadful ordeal for anybody, but the Southern Rhodesians, coming from the open veld of southern Africa, had a particularly tough time getting used to the cold and the mud." this felt a little unencylopaedic/informal. How about "Trench warfare was a dreadful ordeal for soldiers, and the Southern Rhodesians, coming from the open veld of southern Africa, had a particularly difficult time getting used to the cold and the mud."?

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The MOS recommends that "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.". The article could achieve this, I think; perhaps starting something like "The Southern Rhodesian involvement in the First World War began with the outbreak of war in 1914 through to its conclusion in 1918. Southern Rhodesia, then administered by the British South Africa Company, received the news that war had been declared with great patriotic enthusiasm—Sir William Milton, the Company administrator, immediately wired Whitehall that "all Rhodesia ... [was] ready to do its duty."?

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• File:Delville Wood Battle July 1916.jpg. This is described as a "Official British Military photograph", but it certainly isn't a photograph. Ideally, if we're saying it was produced by an official military artist, it would good to have their name to confirm this.

• I've changed "photograph" to "drawing", but can't really do much more as I don't have the original source the picture comes from. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Pat Judson.jpg. The tagging on this is apparently disputed. I'd note that the statement that "We can be sure, however, that the picture is PD in the US, having been created before 1923." is probably incorrect; the pre-1923 rule applies to publication, not creation.

• I recommend you read the discussion on this picture here; it seems that it might still be PD as it was taken before 1967, and so entered PD in Rhodesia 50 years after being taken (rather than published). See Stefan2's reasoning at that link. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:1st Rhodesia Regiment in Bulawayo, 1914.png. This needs a US tag as well as a Zimbabwean one.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:1st Rhodesia Native Regiment in Salisbury, 1916.png. Ditto.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Lettow's surrender.jpg. Needs a US tag. Worth checking that the EU life + 70 + anonymous rule applies to Tanzania.

• According to Tanzanian copyright law (last renewed 1999, see here), section 14/3 says that in Tanzania anonymous works enter the public domain "fifty years from the date on which the work was either made, first made available to the public or first published, which ever date is the latest". I've put a pre-1923 anon tag on there for now, but this might not actually be correct as we don't know when exactly this was first published (indeed, the first time it was made available to the public might have been when it was put in the museum, and this might have been decades after it was made, presuming it was indeed made at the time of the event). —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• File:RhodesianReserves1916.jpg. Needs a US tag.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Yes.