Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rudd Concession/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 10:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rudd Concession

[edit]

Rudd Concession (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the Rudd Concession, one of the most important events in the history of the country today called Zimbabwe. It was a grant of mining rights by the Matabele king Lobengula that, through a series of political machinations and deceptions, became the basis for the foundation of the British South Africa Company and, ultimately, for the creation of that corner of Africa called Rhodesia.

I wrote this article from scratch over the past couple months and today (16 April) it appeared on DYK and gained GA status, the latter following a very helpful review from Khazar2 (talk · contribs), who amongst other things reviewed the prose, length and image licensing. After passing the article for GA he recommended I bring it here. I feel the article is at least close to FA status, and so have nominated it for consideration.

Note that the article is written in South African English, which is basically British English with a few extra words thrown in. Thanks, and I look forward to all your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have two long reviews promised and outstanding, so it may be a while before I can look at this article in detail. I would very much like to review it, as the subject is fascinating and, on the face of it, has been well researched. Two minor points:
  • The phrasing "Starting a couple months after its enactment..." in the lead bothered me. I don't know enough about South African English to know how acceptable this wording is in formal, as distinct from colloquial expression, but "a couple months" isn't strictly grammatical, and certainly isn't pretty in any context. It's also inappropriately vague for an encyclopedia, and I recommend that you rephrase this.
  • In a well-illustrated article, at least two images seem marginal: the 1835 depiction of warriors in a section describing 1880s negotiations, and the anachronistic picture of Victoria in her coronation robes (1838). I am not sure these add anything to the article.

I hope to return in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the initial comments Brian. I have altered the phrasing you pointed out to "starting in early 1889"—the vagueness is due to the fact that Lobengula didn't immediately reverse his stance on the concession, but gradually turned against it between January, when he started his enquiry, and April, when he wrote to Whitehall unequivocally disavowing it. Hopefully this is okay. Regarding the pictures I thought the 1835 warriors were okay as Matabele society did not change much over those 50 years, but I have removed it as I don't think it really adds too much in any case. I've replaced the picture of Victoria to an 1887 picture, more in context with the article. Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you again. Have a great rest of the week. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SupportLeaning to support: This is an excellent article, very thorough and comprehensive and generally well written. I made a few small edits during my readthrough, mainly punctuation fixes and minor rephrasing. I have a few suggestions for further consideration:

  • "high commissioner for southern Africa" in the text, "High Commissioner for Southern Africa" in the image caption. In British English the capitalised form is most usual; In SA-English I don't know, but there should be consistency. I notice similar discrepancies with "colonial secretary" and "prime minister".
  • In the section "Prelude: the Moffat treaty": clarify that "He presented the treaty as one that would renew..." refers to the proposed Anglo-Matabele treaty; the last treaty mentioned is the Grobler treaty.
  • In the "Negotiations" section: "He said that his backers were not seeking land, like the Transvaalers" - needs clarification, e.g. "He said that his backers, unlike the Transvaalers, were not seeking land..."
  • I would avoid over-emphatic adverbs, as in "an extremely generous price". Thus: "Rudd was offering generous terms that few competitors could hope to approach".
  • "when Maund rose the subject" → "when Maund raised the subject"
  • "it would not do diplomatically" → "it would not be diplomatic"
  • "to interminably tolerate" is awkward prose. Just "to tolerate" would serve equally
  • You mention that the queen's reply to Lobengula satisfied the emissaries, but you don't indicate the nature of this reply.
  • "interminably seeking out supporters" - that word again!
  • "Lobengula fled Bulawayo as the whites approached, torching it as he went". I imagine he torched it when he arrived there, not "as he went".

When these are addressed, and subject to no problems arising from the sources review, I shall be happy to upgrade to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the very helpful and thorough review. I'm very glad you enjoyed the article and found it interesting. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • I don't know German, but I have had a go at translating it with the aid of Google translate, and it seems to roughly translate as:
"Source: World Atlas Andrées, Supplement 2 to Ed in 1887, Velhagen & Klasing
Scanning and editing: User: Ulamm Jan. 2007
Internet presentation with kind permission of the publisher Cornelsen, successors of Velhagen & Klasing".
  • This seems equivocal. I've replaced the map image with the 1835 warriors picture (see above), which I feel is probably an improvement anyway, as the map doesn't really add much; I will leave investigating the 1887 German Matabeleland map to somebody better acquainted with this kind of thing. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Top stuff and all the more impressive that you wrote this from scratch. Just one minor query -- under Agreement, there's a quote which states "...the said monthly payment of one hundred pounds..."; I take it the bit in bold is a spelling mistake? Lemonade51 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley (see below) This is a most impressive piece of work. I have little doubt that I'll be adding my support in due course, but, for now, here is the first batch of very minor comments from me. Nothing to frighten the horses, and to be acted on or ignored as you think best:

  • Lead
    • If I may be tediously pedantic, "verbally" means "in words"; I think that strictly you ought to say "orally" here.
      • Yes
    • "convince the British government to deem" – I recognise a losing battle when I see one, but I insist on fighting a rearguard action against the Americanism "convince to". In proper English one convinces that and persuades to. But I note your comment above that the article is in South African English, and my comments may therefore be ultra vires.
      • No, you're right
    • "amongst" – why not the plain "among"?
      • OK
    • "to meet with" – another Americanism I strive to resist: one meets with abstract things (disaster, success etc) but just meets people.
      • Yes
  • Background
    • "These efforts were mostly in vain, however." – I think the sentence would be stronger without the "however". Just a thought, which ignore, natch, if you disagree.
      • Yes
    • "Cecil John Rhodes" – as in the lead, you give his middle name; I'm not used to seeing it used in mention of him, and I find it slightly distracting.
      • OK
  • Prelude: the Moffat treaty
    • "Moffat, an old friend" – there is another old friend a line or so above: perhaps rephrase one or the other to avoid repetition?
      • OK, second one changed to "well-known to Lobengula"
    • "met with Paul Kruger" – as above
      • Yes
    • "Christmas Day, 25 December" – most readers, of any religion or none, will know that Christmas Day is 25 December, and unless the fact that it was Christmas Day is of some importance I'd be inclined to say either Christmas Day or 25 December, but not both.
      • Yes
    • "empowering him to personally take control" – foolish though the superstition against split infinitives is, many otherwise sensible people believe in it, and so I find it best to avoid splitting whenever conveniently possible. You could dodge the issue by saying "empowering him to take personal control".
      • OK

More soonest. – Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding batch of comments. All so minor that I am happily adding my support, below.

  • Race to Bulawayo
    • "he was suffering from cancer, which proved fatal within a few months" – is this really relevant?
      • It helps to explain why John Fry was not sent north again. Rhodes ultimately did send Ivon Fry, John's son, north as a continency, but I figured that was not really relevant.
  • Negotiations
    • "incorrectly pointing south" – unclear whether he was wrong to point South or whether he purported to point south but in fact pointed some other way.
      • OK, have clarified to "incorrectly pointing south (rather than north)"
  • Lobengula's embassy
    • Last para of section – as above in re split infinitives; "to publicly downplay" oughtn't to offend anyone but "to furiously declare" does rather smack one in the eye, and could easily be "to declare furiously"
      • OK
    • "not to mention their anxiety" – but you do mention it. I think I'd replace this rhetorical flourish with "in addition to" or some such
  • Occupation of Mashonaland
    • "what Lord Blake describes" – as you're referring to Blake in his capacity as historian, I'd be inclined to call him "Robert Blake", which is how he appears on the title pages of his books.
      • OK
  • Image captions
    • Not sure about the italics in the caption for Lobengula
      • OK
    • There's a lurking "convinced to" in the caption for the Martini-Henry rifles.
      • OK
    • Vastly impressed with the "hover mouse" gizmo for the board of directors! Very nifty.
  • Bibliography
    • Not sure why some books (e.g. Berlyn, Ferguson et al) get a month as well as a year of publication and others don't. Does it add anything that the reader will find useful?
      • I'm not really sure the added detail hurts anybody, but if you feel really strongly about it there is not much harm in taking them away.

That's all I find to quibble about. – Tim riley (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – the narrative of this complicated story is clearly laid out (which can't have been easy), the prose is fine, the proportions sensible, there is no hint of bias and the referencing is full and from varied sources. This article will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia's top flight. – Tim riley (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. A few suggestions, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)

  • "the country that became officially called Rhodesia": the country that eventually became Rhodesia
  • Yes
  • "to annexe": Search throughout; the verb is "annex" in both AmEng and BritEng.
  • Someone else changed this and I presumed it was right, changing back
  • "they agreed a peace treaty", "being agreed": most English-speakers don't understand this phrase; I recommend "negotiated a peace treaty".
  • OK
  • "arrived to": arrived in, or moved to
  • OK
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rudd_Concession/archive1&oldid=865281291"