Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bronkhorstspruit

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 by Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Bronkhorstspruit

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Battle of Bronkhorstspruit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The first conflict of the First Boer War was a one-sided affair that can barely be termed a battle in terms of the contest. A blasé British commander did not consider the Boers to be able to present a threat to the men of the British Army, and was resoundingly defeated in around 15 minutes. The battle was a taste of what was to come over the following couple of months; a series of humbling defeats for the British.

It's been a while since I've brought an article to ACR; hopefully this one is up to snuff after a GA review from Djmaschek, but as always, I welcome all input. Unless you want to moan about citation numbers being in order, which frankly isn't covered by any part of the MOS I've come across 😂. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 20:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Laband also says that Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg" - unclear which Joubert this is
  • "According to the British historian Ian Castle, after having fought in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, a series of battles against Sekhukhune, and then "tedious periods of garrison duty in isolated posts" had left the 94th Regiment low on morale, with increasing levels of desertion" - maybe this is an ENGVAR issue for me, but this sentence just does not seem grammatical to me
    • No, that's just badly written. Changed to "According to the British historian Ian Castle, after having fought in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, a series of battles against Sekhukhune, and then experienced "tedious periods of garrison duty in isolated posts", the 94th Regiment were low on morale, and facing increasing levels of desertion." How's that? Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thought he spotted a group of Boers moving to a farmhouse off the road" - the implication appears to be that the scout had reason to believe this was a hostile force, not a group of civilians. If the sources permit, it might be best to explicitly state that
    • None of the sources explicitly state that unfortunately; I think in the context the implication in both the sources and the article is reasonably clear, but I can't do more with what I have at the moment. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are civilian losses for the British known? Evidently at least Mrs. Fox was hurt
    • Again, I don't see it explicitly listed anywhere. Duxbury says that "one civilian conductor" is included on the "various monuments". (That reminds me that I should add something about the main monument / grave included in the lead photograph!) Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing a few Osprey books cited - their American Civil War coverage is often fairly weak. Is Osprey better for British history?
    • It's clearly written for a general audience, and can simplify things at times, but I've never had any issue with them on British history topics; I've also used them a bit before on English Civil War articles. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the review! Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
And in the main article.
  • "was ordered to intercept and stop the British." By whom?
    • It is never actually explicitly stated in the sources, which I need to resolve in some manner in the body, but is this level of detail required in the lead? Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead, no.
  • "and the excessively large number of wagons they travelled with". I'm not sure about the use of "excessively".
  • "The British took heavy casualties and surrendered after about 15 minutes, the majority of their remaining force being captured." If they surrendered after 15 minutes, what remaining force was there to be captured?
    • I meant those that weren't injured, but I see what you mean. I've changed it to "..the majority of their surviving men being captured." but honestly I'm not keen on the phrasing, I'll probably come back to this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that became a distinctive feature of the Boers." I think the Boers need some sort of introduction.
    • Expanded this sentence out to "These settlers, known as Free Burghers, established an independence that became a distinctive feature of their descendants, the Boers." How is that? Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.
Fine for A class. But for FA I think you need to further help a reader understand why new law might cause large numbers of people to abandon their farms and move. And one assumes that north is a direction taking them outside effective British jurisdiction?
  • "The British expanded their territory throughout the 19th century" → 'The British expanded their territory in southern Africa throughout the 19th century'.
  • No links for Natal or Transvaal?
  • "had informed the Boer leaders that they would not relinquish the Transvaal." It is unclear who "they" refers to.
  • "he made the decision to recall men from outlying garrisons, and concentrate his strength in Pretoria". Could you mention what force(s) this was, their strength, that they were scattered across the region and why.
    • I can't find details on their overall strength, though I feel it must exist somewhere in regimental histories, so I'll keep looking. Regards the "why", do you mean why they were garrisoned around the region? Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
  • "The garrison comprised the headquarters and two companies of the 94th Regiment of Foot." Do we know numbers?
    • The end of the paragraph has some figures: "He left roughly 60 men to hold Lydenburg, taking somewhere in the region of 245–270 soldiers" If we add those together, we get roughly 300 to 330, albeit not all of the 94th. Do you feel it needs explicitly adding here too? Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to.
  • "(4.8 km)". False precision?
  • "less than half-distance on their journey". Is that grammatical?
    • Google seems to only think it is used in motorsports, which is probably why it seemed fine to me. Changed to the much more common "less than halfway through their journey". Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Boers were actively taking up arms in the area." As opposed to inactively taking up arms?
  • "trying to agitate local sympathies". Can one agitate a sympathy?
  • Link triumvirate.
  • "MkIII". That should be Mk III.
  • "used guerrilla tactics, using". "used ... using". Perhaps "used" → 'employed' or similar?
  • "hidden from the road. They were hidden from the road".
  • "advancement". Really?
    • Yes, if he got promoted to Colonel, that was it. War. Double sigh. Replaced with "further movement towards Pretoria" though that might be a tad repetitive with the later "continue to Pretoria". Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The return shots that they did fire typically went high, over the heads of the Boers." Is it known why this was? (Come to that, how do we know it?)
    • There were quite a few primary sources for the battle; accounts from both Boers and British soldiers. I've struggled to unpick these; I want to add a bit of detail before a FAC, but it may remain pretty vague. As to why, Duxbury provides this: "Several Boers were emphatic that the British had set their sights to 400 yards and that, when they (the Boers) moved forward, the British failed to re-sight their rifles and that their shots, for the most part, went high over the heads of the Boers. These statements are based on inspection of the rifles captured, and are borne out by Egerton who stated, 'The 94th fought remarkably well, but their fire did not seem to take effect; they did not seem to know the range, and all the officers were down.'(11) In the circumstances it seems to be a reasonable assumption that they failed to adjust their sights." I just didn't know if this was getting a bit too technical for the article. Happy to put it in though. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely include it.
  • I've expanded to "The return shots that they did fire typically went high, over the heads of the Boers, which contemporary reports on both sides attributed to the British having their sights set to the wrong distance." Let me know if you think it would benefit from more detail still. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would benefit from more detail.

A good, sound looking article. Most of my comments above are nit picks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Cheers. Dealt with most, thrown a few queries in on others. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed a few queries. If I have said nothing, I'm happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thank you; I think I've at least offered a solution to everything. Whether they are acceptable or not, I'll leave up to you! Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]
  • Images look good, all licensed and sourced, apart from the PD-100 tag on File:Gevär - Livrustkammaren - 96971.tif (which appears to be a problem with the template they're using for that file). Objects like rifles don't have copyright, so that really ought to go (though, if you can't make the template work correctly, I won't cause a stink!)
  • Source all appear to be high quality and represent recent scholarship (along with a couple of interesting contemporary newspaper articles
  • I did a light spot-checking, and everything looks ok to me. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers Parsecboy. As you say, unpicking the template looks more effort than it is worth at the moment. I'll probably have to do it for the FAC, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Effectively at the moment, we have the appropriate license for the photograph (the CC BY-SA), and a superfluous one for the object, so it isn't the end of the world. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • Could have a map of South Africa showing where the places mentioned in the Background are?
    • For the moment, I've just added a simple locator map into the infobox to show the location of the battle itself in modern South Africa, but I'm working on a era-specific map at the moment, just having some svg wrangles. If you're content for A-class, it will be in place ready for an FA nom. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does note a need to be in a footnote instead of the body?
  • "Liberal Government" Link here?
  • I would mention that Philip Robert Anstruther was the OC of the 94th Foot.
    • Clarified in the "British troop movement from Lydenburg" section: "On 27 November, the commanding officer of the 94th Regiment—Lieutenant Colonel Philip Robert Anstruther, who was commanding the garrison at Lydenburg—received orders.."
  • There are some strange turns of phrase: "established an independence", "attributed the 94th Regiment"
    • I was probably butchering the English language to avoid copying the source or repeating myself. Changed the first to "developed and independence", and the second to "Another historian, G. R. Duxbury, gives slightly different numbers for the 94th Regiment: 6 officers and 230 men" Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the review, responses above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Bronkhorstspruit&oldid=1149433433"