Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugh Beadle/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2015 [1].

Hugh Beadle edit

Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Hugh Beadle, PC, CMG, OBE, Chief Justice of Rhodesia at the time of UDI in 1965, is today chiefly remembered for making the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson quite angry. Beadle was very much an Establishment figure, thought the Rhodesian Front government under Ian Smith a motley collection of amateurs and, according to one biographer, would be "remembered as a Commonwealth chief justice who upheld individual liberty" had there been no UDI. Perhaps unfortunately, Beadle's life is now defined by UDI and his reactions to it. He initially stood by the British Governor Sir Humphrey Gibbs and continued his efforts started before UDI to find a compromise. The failure of the 1966 Wilson–Smith Tiger conference seems to have affected Beadle deeply and by 1968 we find him first ruling Smith's post-UDI order to be the de facto authority in Rhodesia, then declaring it fully de jure. How to explain such a volte-face? Was Beadle an "evil genius" who furtively supported UDI all along, or one who "did his best for his country in a time of difficult choices"? We will probably never know for sure.

This article passed a GA review in January and has just undergone a very productive peer review. I think it comes at least close to FA standard. I hope you enjoy reading it; all comments welcome. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. As the GA reviewer I was already family familiar with this article. After a thorough read I am satisfied it now meets FA standards, though I have a couple suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still think beyond the pale should be linked as per WP:IDIOM. Maybe it needs no explanation in other parts of the world, but like I said in the GA review I had to google it
OK, I've removed it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"After Leonie's death in 1953" - Since you gave the cause of death for his second wife i'm guessing you couldn't find any information on Leonie's cause of death? If that's the case it's certainly understandable, otherwise more information on the matter would be nice.
Can't find it in the sources. Will add if I do.

Thank you for the helpful comments, here and at the GA stage, Freikorp, and for your support here. Very much appreciated. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I was one of the peer reviewers. I found the article to be well-written and comprehensive. After reviewing again, I see many improvements have subsequently been made. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help along the way and your support, FunkyCanute. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I reviewed this article at PR and was impressed (not to say abashed) at how much I learned about what was headline news when I was a fourth-former. This judicious and well balanced article meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I have no hesitation in supporting its promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 19:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, the extremely kind words and the help at PR, Tim. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and found it informative. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent and fascinating read, meets the criteria as far as I can see. – SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the extremely kind words and the support, SchroCat. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nicely balanced, well written and very complete. I don't think that all of the small prose changes suggested in the long review, above below, are improvements, although some are. Personally I think that "dissociate" is a better verb than "distance", in the context given; it is stronger, and closer I believe to what Wilson and Co. wished. And I don't much like the mdash introduced into the sentence "This proved decisive for Beadle—to the surprise of many, the Conservatives won, and Edward Heath replaced Wilson as Prime Minister." In any event, the opening "This" needs clarifying. I suggest: "This decision proved decisive for Beadle as, to the surprise of many, the Conservatives won the election, and Edward Heath replaced Wilson as Prime Minister." I will leave it entirely up to you whether you implement these. A great contribution to the encyclopædia. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, the extremely kind words and for all your help along the way Brian. I have gone back to "dissociate", which I agree after looking at the new version for a few days is better. I have also adopted your suggestion on the "decisive" sentence. Thanks and I hope you are well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. This one I've fixed, cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Federation_rhodesia_nyasaland.png: what is the source of the data reflected in this map?
  • Don't know what the original author used, but I've added a source that confirms it (map on inside cover of Richard Wood's history of the Federation).
  • Bugger, so it is. Not sure what to do about this one. It was uploaded to Commons in 2007 with only the url for the image itself, so the Wayback machine isn't finding it. All Tineye's showing me is the same image on other Wikimedia sites. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Singora
Singora starts productively but ends with attempted character assassination of fellow reviewers and declaration that he is "not a part of" this "fucking bullshit". Have granted his wish by capping his comments and closing the conversation. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments from Singora (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is excellent. I remember thinking the prose in your last article (Mutiny on the Bounty) was stuffy, turgid and forced, but this is much better. My observations:

1. RE: Summary. "Born and raised in the Rhodesian capital Salisbury, Beadle read law in South Africa and England". Isn't this a non-seqitur?

I'm sorry, but I don't think it is. We're saying where he was born and grew up, then where he was educated. This seems to me a logical progression. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. RE: Summary. "he added the Education and Health portfolios two years later". Did he add them or were they added?

Good catch. They were added. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. RE: Summary. "As independence talks ... descended towards stalemate". Why do you feel this was a descent? I would use a neutral term such as gravitated or edged.

Well, I would say either side would consider it a "descent", as they would both prefer to see an outcome favourable to them. But I like "gravitated", and have adopted. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. RE: Summary (talks). "These failed". I know what you mean, but think "The talks failed" might be better.

I've changed to "The summit failed" (to avoid repetition of "talks"). —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. RE: Summary. "Beadle's de jure recognition ... made him anathema to the Wilson administration". Did you consider "made him deeply unpopular with" or "provoked hostility from"?

I've adopted the latter. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6. RE: Early life. "and was soon after called to the English bar" -> "and soon after was called"

Thank you for this, an improvement. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7. RE: Political career. "he joined the United Party, formed to contest the 1934 general election out of the former Rhodesia Party and the conservative faction of the Reform Party". I would discuss the formation first and then add the raison d'etre. For example, "he joined the United Party, formed from the former Rhodesia Party and conservative faction of the Reform Party to contest the 1934 general election". Mmmm. Not sure about this. The term "out of" strikes me as a bit iffy, though.

Have gone with "he joined the United Party, created from the former Rhodesia Party and the conservative faction of the Reform Party to contest the 1934 general election." —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8.RE: Political career. You have "Seconded to the Gold Coast Regiment with the rank of temporary captain following the outbreak of the Second World War, Beadle was released from military service at the request of the Southern Rhodesian government to serve as Huggins's Parliamentary Private Secretary". This is awkward. Consider "Beadle was seconded ... following the outbreak of WWII, but was released ...".

OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9. RE: Political career. "He was thereupon appointed ...". You've already used a "thereafter" in your summary. Words like this (thereafter, thereupon, therein) sound stuffy and tedious. Nice, simple words are often better.

I have trimmed this one. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10. RE: Political career. "Two years later, after retaining his seat in the 1948 election with a large majority, he added two more portfolios, those of Education and Health". Back to my earlier question. Why not use a colon and drop "those of".

I have gone with "he was assigned two more portfolios, those of Education and Health." I prefer the the "those of" construction in this case to substituting a colon or emdash, though I appreciate the suggestion. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11. RE: Political career. "and put much work into attempting to create a Southern Rhodesian system". I'm pretty sure this is grammatically wrong. I think "much" is one of those words used primarily in negatives and questions. For example, "I've got a lot of free time tomorrow" versus "I don't have much free time tomorrow".

Have substituted "considerable". —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12. RE: Political career. "Beadle would explain later that he had left politics". This is past perfect. Why not just use past simple?

OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13. RE: Chief justice. You have: meaning "the thing was bound to crash."[4] Shouldn't the period come after the quotation mark? Compare this sentence with the one referred to in point 9.

OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14. RE: Chief justice. "He later said that he was repeatedly asked ...but that he". Drop the second that.

OK; also dropped the last "he". —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That'a all for now. It's 22H30 here in Singapore and time to watch a movie. I'll finish this off tomorrow.

Thanks for this Singora; very kind words and helpful comments. I'm glad you like the article. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More from Singora (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 15. Just noticed the summary has "He became Chief Justice in 1961, the same year he was knighted, and three years later became president of the High Court's new Appellate Division and a member of the British Privy Council." The word HE starts the preceding sentence. Did you consider:
    • 15a. "In 1961 he was knighted and appointed Chief Justice; three years later he became ........."
    • 15b. "In 1961 he was knighted and appointed Chief Justice, and three years later became ........."
  • Have gone with 15a—an improvement. Thanks for this. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16. RE: MP and Cabinet minister. You say "The criteria were applied equally to all regardless of race, but since most black citizens did not meet the set standards". Do you mean BLACK or NON-WHITE? I ask this question because I used to have Indian friends in England who fled Uganda (RE: Idi Amin) in the early 1970s.
  • I mean black. The interior ministry in Southern Rhodesia considered the country to have four "racial groups": black (or African), white (or European), coloured (mixed race), and Asian (sometimes "Indian"). The latter two were tiny minorities and largely integrated into the white community so far as voting went. Indeed the 1969 republican constitution went so far as have black/African and white/European categories only, folding all the coloureds and Asians into the latter section. (Some of the RF's strongest supporters were actually non-whites. A fairly good barometer regarding the Rhodesian population's support for Smith's post-UDI government is the 1972 Pearce Commission on the terms Douglas-Home had made with Smith. Pearce's commissioners worked on the basis of four racial groups and found a large majority of blacks to be opposed, but the rest strongly in favour: whites 98%, coloureds 97% and Asians 96%. [2]) —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Singora (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17. RE: Chief Justice. You have "In August 1959, amid rising black nationalism". Should black nationalism be linked? Is there a link?
I agree -- this is not really what you want. The link detracts rather than adds. I think you need to remove it. Singora (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the link to go to African nationalism, which I think is better. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18. RE: UDI. You've written "After talks in London in early October 1965 were unsuccessful, Wilson, desperate to avert UDI, travelled to Salisbury later that month to continue negotiations". What talks? Why were they unsuccessful? Consider:
    • 18a. "A compromise was sought in London in early October 1965, but after talks failed Wilson ..."
    • 18b. "After efforts to forge a compromise in London in early October 1965 failed (were unsuccessful / collapsed), wilson... "
  • Have gone with 18b. They failed basically for the same reason as before—neither side considered the other to be giving enough ground and each considered the other to be basically deliberately intransigent and malevolent. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19.RE: UDI. "Beadle continued to frantically seek a compromise". Split infinitive. Beadle continued frantically, etc.
  • 20. RE: Madzimbamuto case and Tiger talks. You have "During the immediate post-UDI period the Chief Justice occupied a unique position as he could speak directly with all of the main players—Gibbs, Smith and Wilson. He became the main intermediary between them, and received a dormant commission from the UK government to replace Gibbs as Governor in case of necessity". I think you need to have something like "Beadle, in his role as ..." We (your target audience) need to know we're reading about Beadle.
  • 21. RE Madzimbamuto case and Tiger talks. You've written "On 5 December 1966, when Beadle heard at Government House that Smith's ministers had rejected the terms, he stood 'as though pole-axed', Gibbs's Private Secretary Sir John Pestell recalled, and appeared close to collapse". I would omit the "Gibbs's Private Secretary Sir John Pestell recalled" in the interests of flow and readability.
  • Since this is a direct quote from Pestell I think we should attribute it; not attributing it might lead the reader to think this is quoted from the cited source (Facchini), Beadle himself, or someone else. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More tomorrow.

Thanks for this Singora. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More from Singora (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 22. Let's jump forward to your Notes and References section. You have:

Pratt, R Cranford (1960). "Partnership and Consent: The Monckton Report Examined". International Journal. 16 (1). Toronto: Canadian International Council: 37–49. doi:10.1177/002070206101600103. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

  • 23. What's my point RE: the above?
  • I see the doi was wrong. Fixed, should work now. Good spot. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 24. Are your References really References or should they be Citations? I've only written one FA (I'm working on two more on my computer, though) and I too originally had References. But then some guy changed it to Citations. I checked this out and figured he was right. I'm very rusty in the area, however.
  • I don't really mind either way; I usually write "references" but I have no problem putting "citations" instead. This isn't a big issue for me. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25. RE: "In May 1973 Beadle chaired the High Court appeal hearing for Peter Niesewand, a freelance reporter for the overseas press who had been convicted of espionage under the Official Secrets Act, prompting outcry abroad". Your source "The Press is the enemy to Rhodesia" doesn't appear to support this. I see no mention of Beadle, for example.
  • That Beadle was there, etc is supported by the next citation ("Ousted Rhodesian Newsman Got Off Easy") and the Time source. Have added an instance of each here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26. RE: "Niesewand had written three articles in November 1972 claiming to describe the Rhodesian military's plans for combating communist-backed black nationalist guerrillas, and had been sentenced by a magistrate to two years' hard labour, one year suspended". Your source "Ousted Rhodesian Newsman Got Off Easy" works well for this sentence and the one that follows.
  • 27. Ref number 60 (TIME) is also good.
  • 28. RE: "Were it not so it would mean this court condoned the illegal abduction of Botswana nationals". In your source the word Court is capitalized.
  • 29. RE: "Hugh Beadle Primary School in Bulawayo retains its name in the 21st century". The source here is fine.
  • 30. RE: Professor J.R.T. Wood. This is a long article on the guy's personal website. Is the article taken from a published source? I'm not quite sure how any of this supports "RF proponents downplayed black nationalist grievances regarding land ownership and segregation, and argued that despite the racial imbalance in domestic politics—whites made up 5% of the population, but over 90% of registered voters—the electoral system was not racist as the franchise was based on financial and educational qualifications rather than ethnicity". Where am I supposed to be looking?
  • Sorry, my mistake; this passage is cited not to the article on the website but to his 2005 book So Far and No Further. I copied the citation from another article but forgot to put the book in the bibliography. This is the book in question. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More later.

Thanks Singora. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More. Singora (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 31. RE: De jure decision. You have "while rejecting the appeals of 32 black nationalists who had been a month earlier convicted of terrorist offences and sentenced to death". Try:
    • 31a. "who a month earlier had been convicted".
    • 31b. "who one month earlier had been convicted".
  • 32. RE: De jure decision. You have "UDI, the associated 1965 constitution and the government were thereafter considered ...". Not sure why you've added the word "associated". Would terms such as "recently drafted" be better?
  • The 1965 constitution was the UDI constitution, and the term "associated" is included to gently note that. It was indeed recently drafted, but most of the world didn't consider it Rhodesia's constitution at all. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 33. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. You have another THEREAFTER: "and thereafter excluded him from the diplomatic dialogue". Perhaps SUBSEQUENTLY would be better.
  • 34. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. In "but the Rhodesian delegation now demurred on a new British proposal" the word NOW is probably not needed.
  • 35. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. Should "This would involve elected black Rhodesians controlling" be past perfect (would have involved)?
  • 36. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. And yet another THEREAFTER ... "and thereafter having the right to appeal passed bills to the Privy Council in London".
  • This one should stay in my opinion. The point was that if for some reason the blocking quarter failed to block some piece of contentious legislation, there could then be an appeal to the Privy Council. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 37. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. You've written "Smith's team accepted the principle of the blocking quarter but agreement could not be reached on the technicalities of it". Why not:
    • 37a. "agreement could not be reached on its technicalities"
    • 37b. "agreement could not be reached on the technicalities"
  • 38. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. You have "steps towards removing Beadle from the Privy Council if the Chief Justice did not resign or dissociate himself from the republic". The word DISSOCIATE is ugly and (perhaps) scientific. Did you consider DISTANCE? Perhaps "sever ties with" would be more accurate.
  • 39. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. This doesn't read too well "Beadle's absence prompted speculation in British quarters". I know what you mean, but you may wish to describe the nature of the speculation.
  • 40. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. You have "Stewart wrote to Wilson on 6 May 1970 that he thought they should formally advise the Queen to remove Beadle from the Privy Council". This can be improved. Did you consider:
    • 40a. "On May 6 1970 Stewart suggested to Wilson that they should formally advise the Queen ..."
    • 40b. "On May 6 1970 Stewart expressed his concerns (misgivings) to Wilson in a written memo, suggesting that they ought to formally advise the Queen ... "
  • 41. RE: Threatened removal from Privy Council. You have "This proved decisive for Beadle; to the surprise of many, the Conservatives won". I would use a colon; a semi-colon seems wrong.

I'll finish this off during the week.

Thanks Singora. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments from Singora (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see little Brian Boulton and his clique of sad-faced fanboys have arrived on the scene. No way am I part of this shit. The "Supports" that these clowns give are not supports. What you have here is a straightforward clique of insecure runts handing out tit-for-tat supports. It's fucking bullshit. And I'm not part of it. Singora (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment: I think Singora's final comments completely sum up this contributor's character – boorish, attention-seeking, obscene, juvenile. And of course cowardly – how brave to shout his playground insults from behind his anonymous username. Fortunately, no one will take this arrogant little boy at all seriously. Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad to see that sort of nastiness infecting this page. People of goodwill must just rise above it. Tim riley talk 20:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing surprises me from this creature. CassiantoTalk 21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Singora's account for one month. This must be the most deplorable personal attack I have seen on Wikipedia. Clearly, Singora's comments will not be taken into account by the FAC coordinators. Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they won't. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, co-ordinators. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- A wonderful article which I have enjoyed reading immensely over the last couple of hours. Nice work Cliftonian! CassiantoTalk 20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much Cassianto! I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
  • Probably best to go with consistency on linking the publishers in the bibliography: you have some not others.
  • I presume that Annual Report of the Under Secretary to the Federal Ministry of Works doesn't appear in Worldcat with an OCLC? No probs is you've already looked and found nothing.
  • the only other point I messed before is the date range in the IB: as far as I'm aware, his 'in office' datespan should be 1961–77.

That's it from me: all good otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:32, 18 July 2015 (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/Hugh_Beadle/archive1&oldid=1138463328"