Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/7 Independent Company (Rhodesia)
- 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.
Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7 Independent Company (Rhodesia) edit
- Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk)
This article just passed GAN, and was reviewed by Nick-D (talk · contribs), who was very complimentary of it. He suggested that I nominate it here, saying that it should pass. This is my first A-class review, but I am quite experienced at FAC and FLC and don't suppose that this will be very different – please tell me if I am wrong. I look forward to your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- No dab links [1] (no action required).
- External links all check out [2] (no action required).
- Images all have Alt Text [3] (no action required).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
- The images used are all PD or licenced and seems appropriate to the article (no action required).
- A couple of minor suggested changes/improvements (hopefully) to prose:
- "...it was dissolved on 13 May 1978...", might "disbanded" be more appropriate? (suggestion only)
- "...with several times that number in preparation abroad...", perhaps "...with several times that number in training abroad..." (suggestion only)
- "...Major L'Assomption, an ex-officer of the French Army's crack...", do we know L'Assomption's first name? If so it should be included.
- "...and Major Laviola, once a non-commissioned officer...", as above.
- "...Beneath them were the Antillean Captain Toumi, who became the first black...", as above.
- "...were still loyal and eager to go on serving...", perhaps "...were still loyal and eager to continue serving..." (suggestion only)
- Otherwise this looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know the first names for L'Assomption, Laviola or Toumi, unfortunately (at least not from the sources I have so far). I will add them if I am able to find them, of course. I have implemented all of the other changes you suggested. Thanks for the support! —Cliftonian (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems at all. Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As noted above, I recently reviewed this article for GA status and I think that it also meets the A class criteria. It's an excellent article. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, and thanks again for being so complimentary of the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: is Backmann a single man's account? (Bit hard to tell - but it sounds like a memoir.) If so, are we happy with it being used so extensively? (Other than this the article looks good.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Backmann article is a third-party account written by René Backmann, a French journalist and humanitarian. A large part of the article takes the form of an interview with a former member of 7 Indep Coy, who Backmann refers to as "X". Although parts of the interview may be taken as the former soldier's opinion (and I have marked these parts as such in my writing), I would say it is pretty reliable – the vast majority of the interview does not actually talk about 7 Indep Coy, and actually focuses on Backmann asking the guy about other units of the Rhodesian Army, Rhodesian doctrines and equipment, and so on, all of which he describes with accuracy and detail. It is quite difficult to find sources for this subject (I have personally spoken to several former Rhodesian servicemen who could tell me very little, or even nothing about it), and I had little alternative but to refer to this interview quite extensively when writing about the unit's composition and structure. However, I don't personally think that it is relied on unduly. The same section is backed up by a book source and two other journal articles, though not in so much detail. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.