Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military service of Ian Smith/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Military service of Ian Smith

edit
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 User:GrahamColm 01:02, 7 July 2013‎ [1].

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed to Military service of Ian Smith, see below —Cliftonian (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Housekeeping: completed necessary mods in light of article name change. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the time Ian Smith, the Rhodesian Prime Minister who declared independence from Britain in 1965, spent as a fighter pilot in the Royal Air Force during WW2. He suffered partial facial paralysis in one crash, then following another behind enemy lines he crossed the Alps to find Allied troops, finishing the journey barefoot. All this helps to give a fuller picture of the kind of mindset Smith had by the time the independence issue came to a head in the 1960s.

This article has passed a GA review and an A-class review over at the Military History project. I feel it is at least close to FA status and so have nominated it. An issue was raised at the A-class review that perhaps the article might be better named as "Military service of Ian Smith"—I do not feel strongly on this and so am happy to go with any consensus decision regarding the article name. Thanks, and I look forward to all your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments, not a complete review:

  • Just reviewing language here, starting where I left off in the A-class review.
  • "once the Americans had been satisfied of their identities": "satisfied" doesn't usually take "of", and I'm not sure precisely what this means ... that Smith was Smith, or that Smith was Rhodesian, or that Smith wasn't something else?
  • I've changed to "once the Americans had been satisfied that they were who they claimed"—is this better? —Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three months or more missing": slight preference for "spending three months or more missing"
  • "left him with partial facial paralysis and a somewhat unusual, lopsided appearance.": If you're saying that his face was lopsided (which normally would be a bit much but is probably fine here), then I've got a slight preference for: "left his face somewhat lopsided, with partial paralysis."
  • That's it; I didn't find much to complain about. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I commented on this article's A-class review, and think that the FA criteria are also met. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick! —Cliftonian (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Ian_Smith_1963.jpg: source link is dead, and it's not clear why this is claimed to be PD - can you explain? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a photograph of Smith from 1963, fifty years ago, that was taken in Rhodesia. According to Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, photographs taken in Rhodesia before 1967 enter PD there fifty years after being taken (so this year). I was under the impression that it was PD on that basis. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. We actually have a few problems here. It would not have been PD in Zimbabwe on date of copyright restoration (1996), so it's still under copyright in the US. Uploading locally works when something is PD in US but not source country, but not the other way around - we follow US law. Also, copyright expires at the end of the year, so this won't be PD in Zimbabwe for at least a few months. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. Well then I guess it will have to come off Commons in any case, which is quite annoying as the alternative PD image we presently have, from 1990, has him with his eyes closed. Oh well. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can use an official government photograph of him under a British Open Government Licence as Rhodesia was a British colony? What do you think of this idea? —Cliftonian (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've spent the last few days working very hard to find an image of Smith we can use, and I discovered what seems to be an official group photograph of the UFP circa 1956, featuring Smith. I cropped Smith out of this to create a new picture I am fairly sure we can use under the UKGov tag (this allows us to use photos created before 1957 or published before 1963, and I think this should meet one or both of these). This search also uncovered a few more wartime pictures of Smith, incidentally. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm more inclined to title this "military service" than "military career" as the later implies, at least to me, that he made a career in the military as opposed just serving in it for some years.
  • No "the" if using a ship's prefix: the HMS Tiger
  • Where is Galago? Use country name is not very well-known place like London or New York.
  • No DABs or duplicate links. Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK to all, have changed Alberton to Johannesburg (Alberton is a suburb of Jo'burg). Thanks for the review! —Cliftonian (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, but the standard is a bit stricter than you realize because of the common duplication of names. So if it's not a national capital of a major country in Europe or North America (or New York), the location needs to spell out the country. After all, Oxford could be Oxford, Mississippi, especially if it was a book on Faulkner from the University of Mississippi Press.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that the likes of "Oxford" alone are usually OK when the town is a major centre of publishing as readers will assume that the reference is to the most prominent city. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had Nikkimaria query me any number of times in my ACRs and FACs as to which country a place like Oxford is in. So I just add them automatically.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand both sides of this argument, but I think it would be clear to most people from the context that the Johannesburg being referred to here is the major city in South Africa. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Copyedited/reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR. Having checked changes since I last read it, I feel its structure, prose, coverage/neutrality, referencing and supporting materials are all up to FAC standard. Tweaked a couple of things that I hope have improved it but otherwise no concerns. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Ian! —Cliftonian (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments, leaning to support: This is a well written and generally absorbing account of its subject. Occasionally in the earlier sections the narrative veers slightly towards storytelling rather than factual reporting and this needs watching, but is not a major issue. Specific issues:

  • Enlisting and training in Rhodesia:
  • I note that all three paragraphs in this section begin "Smith..." A couple of simple prose tweaks would easily resolve this.
  • There's an unnecssary "nevertheless" tacked on to end of second para
  • Middle East and North Africa
  • Redundant "instead" at the end of the first sentence
  • Likewise, I don't think "in Egypt" is necessary. There is only one Cairo in the Middle East, and you've linked it.
  • Also, I'd drop the second "blast"
  • Italy
  • I would like "flak" to be linked, but the redirect article is dense to the point of unreadability and I doubt a link would help the reader. Perhaps a MilHist bod has a suggestion in this respect?
  • In neutral encyclopedia articles, beginning sentences with "But..." should generally be avoided, since this tends to introduce a dramatic element into the narrative.
  • Punctuation: A semicolon or a full stop, rather than an mdash, should follow "relevant drills"
  • I think his opening the chute and his landing need a bit of separation, possibly by varying the sentence break. Thus: "he turned his Spitfire upside down, thrust the stick forward, released the cockpit's canopy, fell out of the plane and opened his parachute. He landed without serious injuries..." etc
  • I appreciate that the use of "the Rhodesian" is to avoid repetition of Smith's name, but occasionally it jars, as with "At Bill's suggestion, the Rhodesian produced his RAF rank insignia..." This reads better as "Smith"
  • "on seeing this, Chambrin wept with joy" – non-encyclopedic detail?
  • "forcing the Rhodesian to finish the journey..." Definitely needs to be "forcing him"
  • Late war and demobilisation
  • "It was well known that..." Well known by whom?
  • No "indeed" necessary
  • "three weeks early" – does this mean after three weeks of his six-week course? If so this should be clear.
  • Three successive sentences begin "He..." Again, a slight tweaking should provide variety (preferably not via "The Rhodesian")
  • Influence on political career: I have a few concerns with this section, particularly in the second and third paragraphs.
  • Off-topic: some of the content seems more related to the political consequences of UDI than to Smith's military career.
  • Neutrality: this is not generally a problem in the article, but the wording in the second and third paragraphs of this section seem overly written from Smith's perspective. His claim of "betrayal" was a powerful political weapon, and he certainly made shrewd use of it, but he must have known that no British government in 1965, left or right, could have agreed a settlement with Southern Rhodesia that kept political and economic power in Rhodesia in the hands of the small white minority indefinitely. Even had they wanted to, it would not have been feasible internationally.
  • "Proportional to white population, Southern Rhodesia had contributed more to both the First and Second World Wars than any other part of the British Empire and Commonwealth, including Britain itself". This is something of an oversimplification. I don't disparage the contributions of Southern Rhodesians to either world war, but this wording almost seems to disparage the contributions of others.
  • Specifically, I think the second and third paragraphs need some rephrasing and perhaps trimming, to restablish the neutral tone represented in the rest of the article (I will be happy to offer suggestions as to how this might be done). On grounds of topic relevance I would also delete from the final paragraph the words: "...became a pariah in the eyes of much of the world during the 1970s, but remained overwhelmingly popular amongst white Rhodesians throughout the country's Bush War,[42] which pitted Salisbury against two rival armies of black nationalist Marxist–Leninist guerrillas.[58] He...", so that the text simplifies to: "Smith won decisive election victories in 1970, 1974 and 1977..."

I will add a sources review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the very helpful review, Brian! I've implemented most of the above suggestions and tried to find solutions to the reservations you had. I think the article looks in better shape already. I look forward to the source review. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with almost all the changes you have made. One exception: I have redrafted a sentence in the middle of the second paragraph of the "Influence" section so that it reads: "The UK government's objection to continued white minority rule, based on moral and geopolitical factors, clashed with Smith's refusal to establish a timetable for the progressive introduction of majority rule in Southern Rhodesia". The point is that the UK did not demand immediate black majority rule; it wanted Smith to adopt the five "NIBMAR" principles ("No Independence Before Majority Rule"). The main NIBMAR principle was that there should be "unimpeded progress towards majority rule". Britain was quite happy for Smith to remain in power during the transition, but transition there had to be. Smith would not accept this. If you wish to cite a reference for my wording you could use The Dictionary of Contempoarary Politics of Southern Africa, (Williams & Hackard, 1988 page 182. If you have a problem with this wording, please let me know. I shall be working on the sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tweaks and the help with this! Re: NIBMAR. Smith had it that unimpeded progress towards majority rule was already catered for under the 1961 constitution as the franchise was non-racial and based on educational, financial and property qualifications. He contended that majority rule would inevitably result eventually under this system and that the principle was therefore met. It was Britain's insistence on a set transition period of a few years, rather—Douglas-Home suggested 5–6 years in late 1963, if I recall correctly—that Smith was against, and Britain interpreted this as Smith rejecting the point entirely. (The same goes for the principle of acceptance to the population as a whole. Smith's acceptance of this point during talks with Douglas-Home in 1964 came back to haunt him later as several near-settlements foundered on the dispute of what constituted majority acceptance, as Britain placed black nationalist views above those of the tribal chiefs Smith presented. Again, Britain saw this as Smith turning down the principle.)
Anyway, I've added the word "set" to your wording on this to make more clear what Smith was turning down, but otherwise I think it looks okay now as we have it. I hope this is okay with you. Thanks again for your help! —Cliftonian (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fair enough. Note I have added the Williams & Hackland ref. Brianboulton (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have upgraded to support - the outstanding sources issues are trivial. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Nitpicks only

  • Ref 2: The newspaper is The Times, as given in your bibliography (not Times)
  • Ref 3: Page should be 488–489; the earlier page gives the heading to which the list on 499 relates and thus gives context to the list
  • Ref 18: In this case you have to go back to p. 1859 for the list heading
  • Ref 45: The journal is The Economist, as given in your bibliography (not Economist)

All sources are reliable & high quality. Subject to the above, all formats correct. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all done. Thank you very much for all the help with this Brian! —Cliftonian (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - There is a minor problem with reference 50:

Harv error: link from #CITEREFWilliams_.26_Hackland1988 doesn't point to any citation. Graham Colm (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK fixed. Thanks Graham —Cliftonian (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2013 (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/Military_service_of_Ian_Smith/archive1&oldid=569497544"