Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [1].
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails 1c (well-researched) due to ignoring recent high-quality academic sources (see list on talk page). Also, it probably fails 1d (neutrality) due to its reliance on dated works and JRT Wood, which is fine to use but not to the exclusion of other research. Overall the article is similar to Ian Smith, which was recently delisted as a featured article. The nominator is a vanished user so I didn't notify them. buidhe 11:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just read Nyamunda's "'More a Cause than a Country': Historiography, UDI and the Crisis of Decolonisation in Rhodesia" from the Journal of Southern African Studies. It is a review of the literature concerning mostly the UDI country (i.e. the independent Rhoedisan state) rather than the declaration itself, but it does draw attention to a historiographical debate on the importance of Wilson's assurances to Smith that he would not wage war against an independent minority-ruled Rhodesia in facilitating the UDI to go forward. This is not adequately reflected in the article (a wider reading of several sources also suggest there were several reasons why Wilson did not want a war, including his slim majority in Britsh Parliament). There are also some instances in this article where citations are combined to the point where it is difficult to determine which information in a given paragraph is supported by which source. For example, take this following sentence: "The British government dismissed this option because of various logistical issues, the risk of provoking a pre-emptive Rhodesian strike on Zambia, and the psychological problems that were likely to accompany any confrontation between British and Rhodesian troops in what Smith said would be a "fratricidal war"." This is sourced to both Wood's book and Smith's memoir. Obviously Smith's opinion on fratricidal war can be attributed to him, but what of the rest? Would he be privy to the internal logic of the British government? Doubtful, but now we are left with a conundrum that asks more questions than it answers.
- The article "Church and State in Rhodesia: From the Unilateral Declaration of Independence to the Pearce Commission, 1965–72" in the same journal lists Wilson's "Five Principles" which his government told Rhodesia during the negotiations that it had to meet before it could be granted independence. This crucial information is curiously absent, as is the reactions of the local church structures to the UDI (it was roundly denounced by the Anglican bishop of Salisbury Cecil Alderson, all five Catholic bishops in the country, and the governing body for all Protestant churches). It also notes how the 1-year anniversary of the UDI was celebrated by the government, and how Alderson refused to participate. It also discusses Alderson's concerns about the internal division in the Anglican church over the UDI. Clearly this article has important information which must be included here.
- Nyamunda's 2017 "Money, Banking and Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence" in The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History discusses how RF tried to disentangle its monetary and financial system from Britian in preparation for the UDI. This is curiously absent from the article.
- -Indy beetle (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I said in a talk page where you gave FAR notice, I recommended that you look at Hugh Beadle due its similar circumstances. Is it me, or is the fact that a) many b) relatively-recently promoted article c) all about Rhodesian 1965-1980 politics being reviewed and likely demoted seem odd? Perhaps we can tell the Signpost about this, although that might not be appropriate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Hugh Beadle and William Harper (Rhodesian politician) have also been described as deficient FA articles, but I am unable to confirm in those cases that they fall short of the FA criteria because both are lower profile figures with fewer sources available. The article on Beadle, for example, has a lot of citations to a 2007 academic article that should be fine. If anyone has additional suggestions on how to handle these articles or whether they meet FA criteria, it would be welcome to post on talk pages and ping me. All of these articles were written and nominated by the same vanished user formerly known as User:Cliftonian. I have taken a look at Cliftonian's other FA nominations. Some of them are sports- or crime-related and unlikely to be problematic but Paul Kruger, D'Oliveira affair, Air Rhodesia Flight 825, Southern Rhodesia in World War I, Rudd Concession, Rhodesian mission in Lisbon, and Military career of Ian Smith should probably be checked. buidhe 22:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buidhe: Ditto for Roy Welensky. As to your point @John M Wolfson:, it is a shame that so many of these are due to be up for FAR, since the Rhodesia area is one of the few African topics on Wikipedia with a solid amount of FAs. That said, many of these FAs are older and promoted at a time where heavy reliance on things like memoirs wasn't seen as an issue. Rhodesia is a controversial area in history, which is why there was increased scrutiny of the Ian Smith page that culminated in FAR. It seems only natural that attention would drawn to other Rhodesian articles afterwards, especially since they were all nominated by the same user, and apparently suffer from the same deficiencies. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I already put a FAR notice on Welensky because of excessive self-sourcing. There is a thread open on WT:FAR#Cliftonian nominations where the systemic issues can be discussed. buidhe 09:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buidhe: Ditto for Roy Welensky. As to your point @John M Wolfson:, it is a shame that so many of these are due to be up for FAR, since the Rhodesia area is one of the few African topics on Wikipedia with a solid amount of FAs. That said, many of these FAs are older and promoted at a time where heavy reliance on things like memoirs wasn't seen as an issue. Rhodesia is a controversial area in history, which is why there was increased scrutiny of the Ian Smith page that culminated in FAR. It seems only natural that attention would drawn to other Rhodesian articles afterwards, especially since they were all nominated by the same user, and apparently suffer from the same deficiencies. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove for reasons I give above. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above. buidhe 12:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, no response, no change, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.