Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Kruger/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) 05:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Paul Kruger edit

Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncle Paul" Kruger never read any book apart from the Bible and thought the Earth was flat, but nevertheless rose to be the four-time president of a republic that defied the British Empire. He encapsulated in his person the 19th-century history of the Boer people, from the Great Trek he took part in as a boy to the Second Boer War that ended his country's independence and sent him into exile. Personifying the Boers as he did, opinions on him correspond closely with opinions on the Boers in general. In some accounts he is a tragic folk hero who gave his all to defend his people, while in others he was an oppressive despot who ultimately brought disaster on himself and his country. The truth is in my view somewhere between these two extremes, though you will do well to find a book telling you that. Emotions run high to this day and even literature published recently often has an agenda.

This recently passed GA and then underwent a peer review from five editors, including the GA reviewer Timothy Riley Esq. In my nomination statement at PR I highlighted the article's length—just under 14,600 words, as of 16 March—and requested input on whether cuts should be made and if so, where. Consensus from the peer reviewers seemed to be that despite its high word count the article was engaging, tightly-written and well-organised, with "no need to soldier through it". I therefore have not attempted any major pruning. I think the article is at least close to FA standards and look forward to your feedback. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The suggestion that the article might be too long was my fault, and I wholly withdraw and repudiate it. It struck me at GAN that the word-count might attract flak at FAC, but when I actually came to give the article a close reading against FA standards at the peer review stage I found the length was not a problem at all. There is no padding, no digression and the narrative canters along briskly. In writing about this controversial figure Cliftonian has consistently maintained an impeccable neutrality – a tightrope walk that can't have been easy. The peer review was thorough and beneficial, and on a third reading the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 15:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Tim for all your help, your kind words and your support. I hope you're having a great week. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per Tim Riley. My comments, minor at that, have been dealt with in the Peer Review. While a bit long, I really feel that this article embodies more of what we need on Wikipedia - good articles on important subjects. The fact that it is falls within the under-covered scope of African history is, in my view, even better. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brigade Piron for the support and the extremely kind words. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image review from Crisco 1492
**File:KrugerPaulusJohannes.jpg - Impossible for this to be PD-70 if we don't know who the creator was. There are several possible templates available for anonymous creators, though you need to show publication. Also, where's this digitization from?
      • Don't know re: digitisation. Have changed tags around a bit. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any word on if it was published before 1923? That's one of the criterion for PD-1923. Not a pre-1923 creation, but a pre-1923 publication. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is this still necessary if we switch to PD-1996? I have done so. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Paul Kruger's signature.png - Fine (though I'd update the copyright tag, as this is PD-100 now)
    • File:Cape Colony before & after the Great Trek.jpg - When did Messrs. Muir and Philip die? Can't claim PD-70 if we don't have their years of death. The US copyright status needs to be included. Also, the link does not go directly to the page with the image, but redirects to the Heritage History cover page.
    • File:G.S. Smithard; J.S. Skelton (1909) - The Voortrekkers.jpg - Same issue with PD-70 here. Also, I'm fairly certain that the direct source is the Internet Archive. (Should also note the page number and original information on the book)
      • OK, done. Thanks for this. Judging from the signature at the bottom the artist seems to be J R Skelton ("J S Skelton" seems to be an error), who didn't die until 1927. Is the picture still PD as this wouldn't have entered PD in the source country (the UK) until 1997/98, if my understanding is correct? —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is again, sadly, correct. Commons position on the URAA is now a bit more ambiguous. For now, I'd recommend removing it from the article and tagging the image with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've done so, but now I see in the template it says "In most cases, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year in which it was initially published." Since it was published in 1909 (or perhaps earlier) doesn't this mean it can actually stay? —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm being a tool. I must have missed the 1909 publication date. {{PD-1923}} is fine, with the correct source country tag. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Andries Pretorius.jpg - Very much lacking in information. Who created this image? When was it first published? Where is this digitization from? Needs a US copyright tag too.
    • File:Kruger c1852.jpg - Fine (though to be safe I'd archive a copy of the Ebay listing)
    • File:M W Pretorius.jpg - US copyright tag needed. Also, I'd note that this is a scan from Dispereert niet, twintig eeuwen historie van de Nederlanden (1978)
    • File:Stephanus Schoeman.jpg - How can you claim PD-70 or PD-100 off an anonymous picture? Needs a proper tag, and an American PD tag (may be difficult if we can't trace publication to before 1923; family pictures were often not published). Where's this digitization from?
      • Schoeman died in 1890. Don't know where the digitisation's from. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • His date of death is irrelevant if we're looking for PD-70/PD-100 (as that depends on the photographer's date of death). I could be 25 when I take his picture, then died at the age of 100 in the 1960s, hence why we have to be careful with anonymous creators from the late 19th century. If this is a South African picture, PD-1996 and the South African PD tag would be enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Paul Kruger c1865.jpg - South African copyright tag may be needed.
    • File:ThFBurgers CHM VA0897.jpg - No individually claimed author, but rather a company. This would generally be treated as anonymous, so PD-70 is not appropriate. Source for the digitization? US tag?
    • File:The Cape Colony - 1878.jpg - Should be fine to copy to Commons with a South African PD tag.
    • File:Jorissen, E J P.jpg Though this was certainly taken before 1923, do we have prove of publication?
      • Is this still necessary if we switch to PD-1996? I haven't yet found evidence of publication. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not if we have the author and s/he died 70 years before 1996, no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:The new Home and Colonial Offices, Westminster, 1875. Wellcome L0004550.jpg - Fine
    • File:Pjjoubert.jpg - I'd note the PD-1923 as well, as it gives the image a bit more of a solid PD-claim. Perhaps not necessary, but good to have.
    • File:Garnet Joseph Wolseley, 1874.png - There's vandalism or something in the information template. Should be fixed. Proof of publication for the PD-1923 claim?
      • It says it was published in 1874 in the Illustrated London News. This was obscured by the puerile vandalism in the description (that had been there two years!) —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:PACronje CHM VA2863.jpg - US copyright status (may require proof of publication)? Digitization taken from...?
      • Don't know about digitisation. Have added PD-1996. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Kruger c 1880.jpg - Proof of publication for the PD-anon claim?
    • File:Stanley, Edward Henry.jpg - Same PD-70 issues (anonymous work means PD-70 is impossible to verify). Was this image directly scanned from the book or taken from a scan online? (I'd bet $10 it's from a Google Books scan of the book)
      • I don't know, I took this from Commons. I've added Anon-1923 and PD-1996 tags. Is this okay? —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Graf v. Bismarck.JPG - Needs a US PD tag.
    • File:Ferreira's Gold Mine in 1886.jpg - Link should not go directly to the picture, but to a page with information about the work (or, barring that, the page using the work). Needs a US PD tag.
    • File:FWReitz VA0947.jpg - Proof of publication for the US PD claim? Source of digitization?
      • According to the description page this was digitised by m.r.doortmont@rug.nl. Described as a "Private portrait" so perhaps was not published? In any case seems to me this should be far out of copyright as S.B. Barnard died in 1916. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:No-nb bldsa 1c031.jpg - Needs a US PD tag (PD-100 will work fine)
    • File:The National Archives UK - CO 1069-214-183.jpg - Fine
    • File:Joseph Chamberlain.jpg - Fine.
    • File:Dr. Leander Starr Jameson.jpg - Fine
    • File:Marthinus Theunis Steyn.jpg - US PD claim? Source of digitization?
      • Another from m.r.doortmont@rug.nl. Described as an "Official portrait" so was presumably publicly exhibited while he was in office. Added PD-1996. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Jan Smuts 1895.jpg - US PD claim? Source of this digitization (i.e. before Wikipedia?)
      • Don't know re: digitisation, probably scanned by "Morne" on the Afrikaans Wikipedia? Source given as 1941 book of speeches by Smuts, published in South Africa. PD-1996 added. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Lord Milner.jpg - Almost certainly a British book, so a British PD claim may be needed.
      • Added PD-1923. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • PD-1923 is for the US. The Brits use the death date of the author, so many pre-1923 works are not PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you expand the Elliot & Fry thing it says they died in 1903 and 1897 respectively. So switched to PD-100. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Mafikeng Second Boer War.jpg - Source of image (before Wikipedia?) Information on author, for PD-70?
      • Seems to be a better version of File:Boer War Q101768.jpg, which is described as a British government creation? —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd use the same information regarding the copyright owners and templates, so that we have a more solid position for PD. Yes, should be a British government creation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Kruger's Last View of Africa.jpg - US PD claim?
    • File:Kruger and family at Oranjelust, Utrecht, October 1902.jpg - Proof this was published before 1923?
      • I don't have any. The image is also here (in poorer quality). —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm... I'll look into that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still doesn't look like enough. Without a publication date, we cannot measure the 70 or 90 or however many years since publication required for a PD-anon claim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmmm. I would really like to be able to keep this, but I will start looking for a picture of the house itself in case we have to lose this one. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Krugerstandbeeld, Kerkplein, a, Pretoria.jpg - There is no freedom of panorama in South Africa (according to Commons). As such, we need copyright information on the statue as well.
      • OK, have done. The sculptor, Anton van Wouw, died in 1945 so this is (just!) public domain in the US. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Krugerrand 1968 82001367.jpg - What's the copyright in South Africa on currency? Commons does not say. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Says here: "The reproduction of images depicting South African banknotes and coin or any part thereof is prohibited by the South African Reserve Bank Act No 90 of 1989 in order to protect users of banknotes and coin against counterfeits." I can't find this actual wording in the original act (here), but I think the relevant section is 34c, which prohibits "any words, figures, letters, marks, lines or devices the print whereof resembles in whole or in part any words, figures, letters, marks, lines or devices peculiar to and used in or upon any note of the Bank or any coin which is legal tender". So I am fairly sure this has to come out. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that we definitely need evidence an image was published before 1923 to use PD-1923, as the public domain status depends on publication. For images that had expired in the source country before the URAA, Template:PD-1996 may work better. (Sorry I forgot to mention this earlier). That should help with most of the South African images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the extremely swift and thorough image review, Crisco! Please see all my replies above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this Crisco. I hope you don't mind me capping the image review above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, I was thinking of doing the same thing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • ... "but they must not touch my independence," he said. "They must be reasonable in their demands.": If the comma isn't in the quote, move it outside the quote marks per WP:LQ. This is probably an issue throughout; search for ,"
  • "he was one of the most famous people in the world": the tone is not encyclopedic.
  • The source wording is almost identical: "Kruger was already one of the most famous men in the world". —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wasn't writing an encyclopedia. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's lose it. We've already said he was a household name and "The outbreak of war raised Kruger's international profile even further." So we probably don't need it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " thereafter, after": This jangles.
  • Thank you for this Dan. I hope my replies and tweaks are to your liking. Hope you're well and having a pleasant week. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I originally participated in this article's peer review and have taken another look see to make sure everything looks to be in order (it is). The referencing and footnotes are good, there is sufficient visual aid, and the text is adequately engaging. I was aware of prior comments made regarding the article's length and language but have found no grounds to question either in the current revision. As a biographical article - especially one correlating to WikiProject South Africa - it's an exemplary work. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Baie dankie Katangais for the very kind words and the support. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Happy St Patrick's Day to everybody watching this page. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review
  • The ODNB entry (Davenport) should not be listed under "Newspaper and journal articles". ODNB is neither a newspaper nor a journal. The article is actually from the online edition of ODNB – not the same as the print edition. It should appear under "Online sources", and should be marked "online edition".
  • Similarly, Reuters is not a newspaper or journal. If and where this article appeared in print is indeterminable. It should be treated as an online source and listed accordingly.
  • The 13-digit ISBNs should be in a standard format – at the moment, some have hyphens and some don't. Also, I understand there is a formula for converting 10-digit ISNBs to 13; I don't know what it is, but SchroCat certainly does.
  • Kaplan should precede Knight in the bibliography
  • In the citations, I noticed quite a few duplicated or overlapping page ranges: see, for example, the Meintjes refs 134 to 139. There may be a reason for this, otherwise it might be tidier to combine some of these.

Apart from these small concerns, sources look good, of appropriate quality and properly formatted. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: A deeply impressive biography of a deeply unprepossessing man. I was involved at the peer review stage and made my points there – I have nothing significant to add here. If it were my choice I might cut a few of the more marginal images, e.g. Bismarck, the Colonial Office Building – but that's a matter for you. Excellent work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much Brian for all your help and the extremely kind words. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I cannot find the ref. Picton-Seymour 1989, p. 164 in the bibliography. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch Mr Burton! Have fixed this. Thank you also for your tidying and copy-editing. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note -- this review has been well patronised and had the necessary checks but given it's been around less than two weeks I might leave it open till the weekend in case there are any late-comers... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 26 March 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/Paul_Kruger/archive1&oldid=1138468781"