Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Southern Rhodesia in World War I/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 10:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Southern Rhodesia in World War I edit

Southern Rhodesia in World War I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The role played in the First World War by little Southern Rhodesia (today's Zimbabwe) has been largely forgotten—indeed, in Zimbabwe itself the modern government has made a conscious effort to bury references to it, pulling down most of the old monuments and memorial plaques. The country's contribution to the war was actually, considering its small population and obscure location, surprisingly large; its men fought in many of the major battles on the Western Front in Europe, as well as the South-West and East African campaigns. Proportional to white population, the colony put more men in the field than any other part of the British Empire, including Britain itself; counting all races together, about 9,000 Southern Rhodesians went to war, of whom around 900 were killed and many more were maimed.

I feel this article meets the FA criteria. It passed a GA review, including an image review, a few months ago and has been expanded quite a bit since then. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to your comments. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE
Article renamed to "Southern Rhodesia in World War I" on 30 August, 1810 UTC, per consensus below. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support:' Comment: It's great to see more large-scope African articles get to such a standard! It's certainly been well done. I've just got a couple of minor reservations:
  1. The title. It seems to me that there is a trend of titles along the formula "Country X in/during War Y" or of "Military history of country X in/during war Y". I don't think it makes a particular difference which one (though it seems primarily military focused here), but it would be nice to bring this article in line with other ones with similar scope.
  2. Minor content issue. An acknowledgement that the white population (which this article almost exclusively deals with) was a minority of Rhodesia as a whole and perhaps more on the role of Africans (if applicable) in the conflict? The article is heavily weighted towards a minority.

Nonetheless, excellent work & if you ever feel like making a WWII companion version..! All the best,Brigade Piron (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the kind words Piron! Yes I intend to work on a WWII version in due course. I deliberately decided to put the article at "Southern Rhodesian involvement in World War I" because Southern Rhodesia was not at this time a self-governing territory (being under British South Africa Company administration), and because most of the "involvement" actually related not to the administration but to the actions of individual Southern Rhodesian people. I thought the wording "Southern Rhodesian involvement" would be superior in this case as the scope of this article is the contributions of both the administration and the people.
  • I put a great deal of effort into attempting to give due weight to the contributions of both black and white in this article. While the whites were a minority, in the context of the First World War they were a majority of the troops fielded by Southern Rhodesia, and it was the white civilian population there that contributed the most non-militarily. I think it is worth pointing out that we give just as much prose to the white Rhodesia Regiment as to the Rhodesia Native Regiment in this article—in fact, I think more to the latter—and more to the Rhodesia Native Regiment than to the larger contingent of white Rhodesians in the trenches of the Western Front. The role played by the black civilian is described in each of the subsections of the "Home front" section—briefly in some cases, I admit, but in some cases that is just because there is not much to say. For example, the vast, vast majority of black women simply carried on their lives as usual during the war, so there is not much discussion of them in the sources or here. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cliftonian, absolutely no problem. I certainly see where you're coming from. My objection about the title still stands (perhaps others would care to comment on this aspect too?) as I don't feel any of the content would have to be cut for a "Southern Rhodesia in World War I" rename. I look forward to your WWII edition.Brigade Piron (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly about the name, and am happy to go with whatever consensus supports. Thanks again for the comments and the kind words. I'm glad you like the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I agree about the title: Military History of Geo Unit in Conflict or Geo Unit in/during Conflict seems to be the preferred naming scheme for these types of articles. I'd prefer "Southern Rhodesia during World War I". Open to suggestions.
  • As I said above, I don't feel strongly about this and I'm happy to go with whatever a majority of people think best. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the history of Zimbabwe template to the article at the top.
  • Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Actually no, I'm not sure this is really necessary and I don't think it adds much. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is linked in there which is why i suggested it; maybe another editor has a better suggestion. Kirk (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have the navbox at the bottom of the page; I don't think we need the sidebar as well. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers read the top of the page to navigate to other pages so I've never liked those bottom of the page navboxes, that's all I'm saying - not a FA req of course! Kirk (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image quibbles: the recruitment poster doesn't mention Souther Rhodesia and there's no images on the left; consider mixing them up a bit.
  • I don't like how the block quotes format on the page and I'm unsure how useful those are to the reader. Review the MOS on those.
  • I like them myself, and I don't see where MOS discourages them, but if others don't like them we can review. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant I was going to review the MOS & should have said that I thought they were a nice change up from images. Kirk (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note-wise, #1 is ok but it would be better to mention in the prose instead, #2 I think you could mention that explicitly in the text, the link is sufficient for #3, put #4-#7, in the prose. #8 is a weird note since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with its paragraph. Put #9 in the prose, keep #10 (but consider a short version? ). Not sure #11 should be a note; might be better with the latter half of sentence 1 and a summary of sentence #2 in the body (w/Von Lettow-Vorbeck Memorial. cut #12 (see below), #13 & #14 probably cut (see below).
  • Okay, I've implemented much of this and trimmed it down a bit. What do you think now? —Cliftonian (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I understand the whole legacy section - there's the immediate aftermath in paragraph 2, but the the remainder probably could be cut and put into a different article.
  • I think a brief summary of SR's contribution to WWII is relevant, and the fact that UDI was symbolically made on Armistice Day is surely worth mentioning in an article about Rhodesia's contribution to WWI. And surely the paragraph at the end briefly summarising modern Zimbabwean perspectives is worth having? —Cliftonian (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look at some 'X during Y' articles and give a more succinct suggestion on how to tighten up this section.
  • Note, we're steering away from using measuring worth and it was common for a while. I usually leave it out the financial comparisons completely, some editors might have a better suggestion.
  • Also delete note 8, thanks.
  • I like this kind of comparison (from the Australia Article, note bold phrase) - Total Australian war expenditure was £2,949,380,000 and at its peak in 1942–43, military costs accounted for 40.1 percent of national income. Its factual, gives the reader something to compare without resorting to bread pricing. Kirk (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I can find something like that in the sources I think it's a good idea, yes. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice to see some non-European articles, thanks for nominating this article. Kirk (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments Kirk. I have responded to each one above. I hope I've addressed these concerns. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, 3 Support - I want to keep this open so the media formatting is addressed per my suggestion above so they are balanced on either side of the page and the worth stuff is worked out. Once that's done I will switch to support but I may not be able to get to this for a few days. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, well thanks for the comments and the input Kirk! Your help is very much appreciated. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again Kirk, I have added a bit on expenditure in the economic impact section and have balanced the pictures a little. I hope this is better in your eyes. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, have you pinged Kirk to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi John: Move the first Rhodesia in Africa image, the Lt. Judson Image and the East Africa Image to the left, that's my suggestion. Ian, we can do this outside of the FAC review process. Kirk (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved Judson to the left, but I personally think the others are better where they are. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment: On the face of it, this looks an impressive and thorough account. It is pretty long, and it will take me a while to read it all, but I will persevere. In the meantime, here are a few comments on the lead:

  • "made by Southern Rhodesians themselves" would read better as "made by Southern Rhodesians individually"
  • I think "myriad" is over the top; it means too many to number, as in the stars of the sky. A rather more modest term is required, I think.
  • You should if possible avoid using the term "black" as a noun to describe people. "Black soldiers" is fine, but "blacks" will incur displeasure. You could in this instance say "about 30 of these..."
  • Maybe in your caption you should identify the marquess specifically. Incidentally, why was he there? As far as I know he wasn't in the KRRC (which, incidentally, was my late father's regiment in the Second World War and after)

More comments as I read through. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for these so far Brian. The reason for the Marquess' presence is explained further down in the "Western Front" section; I've explained briefly in the caption also. He informally sponsored the first party of Rhodesians that went to England, and helped organise their enlistment in the KRRC; he apparently chose this regiment for them as it was based in Winchester, even though he himself was not in it (if memory serves he was in the Royal Hampshire Regiment). I have cut down the use of the word "blacks" I believe entirely, tell me if I have not. Thanks again and I look forward to more of your thoughts. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that Tim is commenting on the article, below. Tim is first-class prose editor, and I'm sure he will pick up most or all of the outstanding glitches. There's not much point in he and I doing the same work simultaneously, so I'm going to wait until he's finished before I make my final readthrough – which should by then be fairly straightforward. Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments

  • (NB: I reviewed at GA)
  • A really solid article, and the following comments are at the "nitpicking" level!
  • One missing name in a reference (I've fixed, pls revert if I'm fixed it in the wrong direction!)
  • For MOS compliance, a couple of article and book titles should be capitalised like the others (e.g. "The years between 1923–1973: half a century of responsible government in Rhodesia")
  • MOS guidance is to "avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text." Worth moving the left justified images down a para for this reason. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the kind words and the support! Also for thanks for fixing that reference, that was kind of you. I think I've fixed the other issues. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment from Tim riley

I shall be supporting FA status for this impressive article in due course, but before that I'd like to offer (perpetrate? inflict?) a few comments. It will take me at least two goes to do justice to an article of this length. Here is go number one:

  • Title
    • I agree with earlier reviewers that a shorter title would be preferable. "Southern Rhodesia in World War I" seems to me more attractive to the reader's eye.
      • Okay, I think this makes consensus so I am changing the title accordingly. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • "made by Southern Rhodesians themselves" – perhaps "made by individual Southern Rhodesians" might be clearer?
      • This was already changed to "Southern Rhodesians individually" (see Brian's comments above), is this okay? —Cliftonian (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • My fault: I was working from a paper copy I printed out a day or so before. Apologies. Tim riley (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • about 40% of white men in the colony – I think the Manual of Style recommends "per cent" (British) or "percent" (American) rather than "%" in text. You may like to check that I'm not imagining this. En passant I seem to see the term "blacks" used here and there but not "whites" tout court: not sure what the Grauniad would think of that.
      • "Whites" is actually used eight times in the article and I believe "blacks" was used a similar number of times before I remove those (again per Brian, who had similar reservations). —Cliftonian (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
    • "focussed" – I believe some dictionaries admit this spelling, but it is generally spelled "focused". (One of those quirks of English spelling like "biased", "budgeted", and "benefited" that are counter-intuitive in their orthography.) There's another "focussed" later in the text, too.
  • Western Front
    • "began suffering heavy casualties on a regular basis almost immediately" – crisper if redrawn as "almost immediately began suffering regular heavy casualties"?
  • 2nd Rhodesia Regiment
    • "The 2nd Rhodesia Regiment left Salisbury on 8 March 1915 to an exuberant reception" – reception when leaving seems an odd word.

More to come. – Tim riley (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • This bit's now taken out, but it is still worth noting your observation is correct. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB: I think the MOS says that "percent/per cent" is "commonly" used in the body of text; it does not seem to be an absolute requirement, though. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it does. I stand corrected and am obliged to Hchc2009 for that steer. Pray ignore my comment above, unless you happen to share my preference for "per cent" to "%". Purely a matter of personal preference. Tim riley (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I share your preference, though, Tim! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "%" simply because it's shorter, but I do not feel particularly strongly on this small point —Cliftonian (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the comments so far and for the kind words, Tim. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding comments
  • Home service and conscription debate
    • "the institution of the draft in Britain" – this is a very tentative suggestion from me, as I am far from sure of my ground, but I have the feeling that "the draft" in this context is a purely American usage and would not have been used in Britain and the Empire in 1916. But I may be quite wrong, and you may think it doesn't matter anyway. I just mention it.
      • I put the word in to avoid using "conscription" again, but you are probably right; I've reworded —Cliftonian (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propaganda and public opinion
    • "Gertrude Page, one of the colony's most famous novelists" – were there other famous novelists in the colony?
      • I don't believe so, but saying the most famous throws up potential POV issues. Nobody can dispute she was one of the most famous. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Women
    • "Like in Britain …" – Perfectly OK gramatically as far as I can work out, but it reads oddly. Possibly "As in Britain"?
  • Donations and funds
    • "the Prince of Wales National Relief Fund" – a swift rummage in the archives of The Times indicates that HRH was given a possessive here "the Prince of Wales's National Relief Fund."
    • "and also up their own" – missing "set" or some such?
  • End of the war, aftermath and statistics
    • "announced to the town of Salisbury" – question arising from my complete ignorance: was it not a city by then?
      • It wasn't; despite being the capital, it only became a city in 1935. This does seem rather counter-intuitive but you must keep in mind how small and new the Rhodesian settlements were at this time. In 1914, Salisbury was 24 years old and home to less than 10,000 people. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
    • Third para – You switch between "World War II" and "the Second World War". Perhaps this is for the sake of variety, but I think it would probably be better to stick to one form or the other throughout the article.
      • I alternated between them for variety in the prose, as you said. I don't feel very strongly on this but I do personally prefer it as it is now —Cliftonian (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Like in World War I" – as with "Like in Britain", above. (Of course please ignore this if you disagree with me.)
    • Last para – does the Stapleton citation cover every statement in this paragraph?
      • It does. I've put an extra iteration of it about halfway through the paragraph to make this clearer —Cliftonian (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes
    • Note 3: I don't think the names of Acts of Parliament are usually italicised
      • I was under the impression that you are supposed to italicise them, but a check shows this not to be the case necessarily —Cliftonian (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got to offer. I have the pleasure of supporting this first-rate article. I knew nothing about this bit of imperial history and am grateful to Cliftonian for a full and clear exposition of the facts. I particularly commend the really excellent neutrality with which the last paragraph, on a sensitive topic, is phrased. The whole article meets all the FAC criteria, in my opinion. – Tim riley (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the very kind words and for the thorough and helpful review, Tim. Indeed as you say this part of history has been largely forgotten; this is part of what made me interested to look into it. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and look forward to working together again soon in the future. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments: I am grateful that Tim has preceded me, since his efforts have undoubtedly added polish to the article. I have a few points of my own, and maybe a few more to follow (I'm about two-thirds through):
  • (Rhodesian Reserve section): Am I right in thinking that the Rhodesian Reserve was an all-white body (likewise the Rhodesian platoons in the KRRC)
  • (Western Front section): "The Southern Rhodesian contingent duly attested into the KRRC". The various meanings of "attested" in my dictionaries don't cover the usage here. Are you sure it's the word you want?
  • (Same section): "As a rule, Southern Rhodesians overseas combined stridently pro-British attitudes with an even stronger pride in Rhodesia". I imagine that this refers to white Southern Rhodesians; this should be clarified.
  • (Same section): I am struggling to understand the second half this sentence: "Southern Rhodesian volunteers continued to arrive piecemeal in England throughout the conflict, so Rhodesian formations on the Western Front received regular reinforcements in small batches, but because casualties were usually concentrated in far larger groups it often took a few months for a depleted Southern Rhodesian unit to return to full numerical strength.
  • When they periodically went over the top for the "big push", they would lose at least half of their guys each time, and because reinforcements from Rhodesia arrived slowly, it would take a few months to replace everybody. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A trivial point, but in "Aviators" you say that Lieut. Judson "remained on active service until April 1919". As that's five months after the armistice that ended the fighting in WWI, maybe you should rephrase slightly.
  • I've changed to "in the unit until April 1919" —Cliftonian (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Matitz rebellion): "But for these grand farewells, the Maritz Rebellion was all but over by the time the Southern Rhodesian contingent reached its destination at Bloemfontein." Needs tweaking – does not make sense as it stands. Perhaps: "Notwithstanding these grand farewells, the Maritz rebellion..." etc
  • (South-West Africa): I don't think "killed in action" requires a wikilink. The meaning is plain and obvious.
  • (Same section): You don't give a reason why the troops were dissatisfied. I imagine it's because they wanted more action than the SW Africa campaign provided, but that needs to be clearer
I'm down to the end of the East Africa section, and hope to deal with the rest tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these Brian. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Leaning to support These are my final comments. You will see from the article's edit history that I have made a few minor edits, which it seemed simpler just to do rather than list.

  • Rhodesian Native Regiment section:
  • "laying in the open" → "lying in the open"
  • "for this and similar subsequent actions" – recommend you delete "similar" (were they really "similar" actions, or actions of equivalent bravery?)
  • This was the main one, but there were other lesser acts of bravery included too. But you're right, I've removed "similar" —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "somewhat successful" is slightly loose phrasing. I'm not sure what you mean by it - temporarily successful, successful in some aspects but not others, etc.? Perhaps clarify.
  • I've put "The offensive had some successes at first, even though Tomlinson was outnumbered ..." —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 5 April 1917, 1RNR crossed the Songwe River; it then moved up the winding Lupa River, crossing it at each turn, for 53 days, before marching the 420 kilometres (260 mi) back to Rungwe in 16 days". I am a little confused here. Did they travel in one direction for 53 days, then make the return journey over the same distance in 16 days? Also, there is no reason provided as to why they took this journey.
  • Not the same distance, no; "back to Rungwe" was supposed to infer that they were going back in the vague opposite direction, but I can see how would be confusing. They were advancing towards Kitanda, one of the main German towns in East Africa, and suddenly ordered back when they were nearly there. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flying column" could do with a link
  • The first sentence of the paragraph that begins "The 1st Battalion harassed..." is way too long and needs subdivision (it has seven commas at present)
"At this point..." needs to be more specific - date, or at least month and year.
  • The overlong sentence syndrome is apparent again in the sentence beginning "In Mozambique, the RNR encountered..." Far too long and complicated, even without the parenthetical aside.
  • Home front
  • "The British South Africa Company's reluctance to commit Southern Rhodesia seriously to the war effort..." I was surprised by this sentence. I hadn't noticed in my earlier reading reluctance, or lack of seriousness of purpose. Rather, the opposite. So I wonder if this sentence is worded as you intend. It might be that the Company had reservations about the extent of its commitmment, but that is not the meaning of what you are saying here.
  • I've reworded to "The British South Africa Company had reservations about devoting all of Southern Rhodesia's resources to the war effort, in part because of its desire to keep the colonial economy operating." Is this better? —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Southern Rhodesia's other main economic arm, farming, did less well out of the war.." Unfortunate phrasing; "doing well out of the war" is not an admirable thing. Stanley Baldwin described the intake into the British Parliament after the 1918 election as containing "a lot of hard-faced men who look as if they had done very well out of the war"; he was not being complimentary.
  • I've reworded to "performed less strongly during the war" —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pangs of escalated fury" - vivid writing, but does it actually make sense?
  • I think "pangs of fury" makes sense, and the use of the "escalated" adjective doesn't seem to change that so far as I see —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Herbert Taylor, the chief native commissioner, believed that foreign missionaries were secretly encouraging rural black people to emulate the Chilembwe revolt in Nyasaland, and telling them (falsely) that the British were exterminating the natives there." I don't think you need to include "falsely"; that can be taken from the context.
  • "myriad" crops up again in "Donations and funds"
  • "End of the war etc
  • I'm not a fan of the side-by-side quote box arrangement. I wonder if it is possible to present this information more elegantly?
  • I've put one on top of the other, is this better? —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
  • I have a personal aversion to the word "atop"; that's my problem... but I do think the phrase "atop a kopje" reads particularly awkwardly.

I'll be happy to support when these issues are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for the comments and for giving this your time, Brian, it is very much appreciated. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have generally happy with your responses, and accordingly have upgraded to support. The one point I still have reservations about is "pangs of escalated fury"; the phrase still seems to me to be obscure as to meaning, and dubiously encyclopedic. Not a dealbreaker, but perhaps reconsider? Nothwithstanding that, this is a well-written and comprehensive article, which provides a fascinating glimpse into one of the war's less well-known contributions. It is fully deserving of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the support and the kind words, Brian. I have reworded the "pangs of escalated fury" phrase to "periods of intensified anti-German feeling". I hope this is better. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-age, CC). Sources and authors provided, where possible. Just one question:

  • On the two army pictures no author is recorded in the source, which simply cites the National Archives of Zimbabwe. I have done partly as you suggested; I have put the PD-UK-anon tag on the Sheerness picture (as it was undoubtedly taken in England) and a PD-ZW tag on the other picture. It seems to me that if it were not an official picture, it might have been taken as a memento by one of the soldiers. In any case the place of first publication in this second case appears to be Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. I hope all this is satisfactory. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Pls just review your dup links to see if they're really necessary; let me know if you need a link to the checker. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have done so, have taken out all but one (I think it is good to have the link to Rhodesia Regiment when the unit is first introduced in its own section, even though it is mentioned in passing and linked higher up). Thanks for this —Cliftonian (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, John. Before we wrap this up, did you ask Kirk to check over your mods based on his comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the delay Ian, I was in a place without internet for a while and I wasn't given enough notice to leave a note. Kirk's issues above appear to be resolved now, though. Sorry again and I hope you are well. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / nitpick. Rather than File:Zimbabwe in Africa.svg, which uses modern country borders, have you considered creating an image with contemporaneous borders? File:Colonial_Africa_1913_map.svg seems a good start, just highlight Southern Rhodesia (even if it's a little weird that map also has the modern borders in the background). Not a huge deal regardless, though. SnowFire (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done as you suggested; well done on the idea I must say, I think this is a real improvement. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Clarification required. Nice work! I agree the article is better with it. One question though - you say in the source section of the Image infobox that this is "own work." Did you really create the map from scratch entirely yourself? It looks strongly like you used "Colonial Africa 1913 map.svg" as a base. If so, you need to mention both the source image and the source image's author in the "source" section of the image tag. You also need to honor at least one of the licenses used by the original map - although if it was the image I think it is, that's already done, since the old image was cc-by-sa 3.0 as well. SnowFire (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'm not that great on this kind of thing. I hope I've fixed this now. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back again, really sorry everybody about the sudden delay and silence—last week got called out to a place with no internet at very short notice and I just got back a few minutes ago. I'll just take a moment to have a look over again at everything. Sorry again for the delay and I hope everybody's well. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Shouldn't homogenously Rhodesian platoons be "homogenous Rhodesian"?
  • about 30 of them makes me think that these scouts belonged to the RNR rather than black soldiers in general.
  • from the overflow of personnel I don't think that overflow is really appropriate, how about "additional"?
  • This makes me think that the platoon transferred by itself: A platoon of 70 Rhodesians in the KRRC's 3rd Battalion was transferred from France to the Salonika Front in 1915 Howabout: "When the 3rd Battalion of the KRRC was transferred..."
  • So both 1RR and 2RR had black scouts attached? They must have numbered more than 30 if the contingent in 2RR had 30 by themselves. Fix the info in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it was the same scouts in both units (1RR and 2RR did not exist at the same time). —Cliftonian (talk) 17:19, 26 September 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/Southern_Rhodesia_in_World_War_I/archive1&oldid=574982594"