Talk:Rudd Concession/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for the review! —Cliftonian (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I'll make some minor changes as I go through for clarity, corrections, and conciseness; please check to make sure I don't inadvertently introduce any error, and feel free to revert any you disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• The lead should be shortened by at least one paragraph per WP:LEAD; it should give just the quickest of overviews. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've given it a go-over; hopefully it's better now —Cliftonian (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, thanks for the quick response! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

More to follow later, Little Miss Khazar needs some play time... -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Length

From what I've read of the article so far, it's quite good, extremely well written and well sourced. This isn't an area of history much more about than the next guy, but you've done a good job of including enough context that I understand.

The only recurrent issue I see so far is the overall length and level of detail. WP:PAGESIZE recommends that articles generally be kept under 50kb unless very broad in scope. While an important event in the region's history, this doesn't seem like a sprawling World War II or History of Africa-like article that needs 70kb of readable prose (its current size). My personal feeling is that concise articles tend to be more useful to our readership than longer ones, since so many of our users are looking for quick answers on various topics, but I know that not everybody agrees with me on that.

The GA criteria, happily, aren't very strict about this, so it's not a huge issue for this review. The only relevant GA criterion is 3b, "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." So here and there, I'll try to suggest some places where the length might be reduced, but I don't intend to require any specific length or require any particular cut; it's all very negotiable. From what I've read so far, I think some places of the articles might start to push that limit, but nothing seems to break it. So if you look at my suggested cuts and turn them all down, that probably won't be an issue for GA status (though I want to make it all the way through before making any promises on that.) I realize that cutting sentences from an article you've worked hard on is like "killing your babies", but in this case I think it might make the whole stronger.

So here's a running list of sentences or phrases where I feel cuts could be made without significant loss to the article--again, these are simply suggestions, and don't worry about responding to them individually. I'm working more on listing straight cuts at this point than material that could be condensed, which is trickier for me to judge.

Prelude: The Moffat treaty

• "Not only had the two men known each other many years, but their fathers, Mzilikazi and Robert Moffat, had been great friends. It was also helpful that the son Moffat was already 52; the Matabele izinDuna were far more inclined to hold discussions with an emissary more advanced in years than a younger man."
• "especially not to any Germans who are the most dangerous of all".[21] The British Colonial Office feared these words might precipitate a diplomatic incident if any foreign envoys were already at Bulawayo when Moffat arrived, so runners were sent after him, and the message was altered to omit the offending passage. "
• "Rhodes and Shippard considered this news so urgent that they met with Robinson at Grahamstown on Christmas Day, 25 December, to discuss it. They agreed to instruct Moffat... " could be made just "Rhodes, Shippard, and Robinson agreed to instruct Moffat..."
• "Robinson despatched these orders to Moffat on 26 December 1887"
• "as Moffat said of the Matabele leadership in general, "they may like us better, but they fear the Boers more"."
• "After about two months,"
• ""I am very glad you were so successful with Lobengula," Rhodes wrote to Shippard. "At any rate now no one else can step in.""
• ", the circus showman turned diamond millionaire Barney Barnato"

Race to Bulawayo

• "; they reasoned that this business know-how might transfer to successfully bargaining with Lobengula"
• ", and instructed to assist in any way his skills made fit"
• " including representatives of syndicates in Johannesburg, Kimberley and Port Elizabeth; Ivon Fry, John's son, who had been sent by Rhodes as a contingency; and three gentlemen representing Eduard Lippert, a German businessman based in the South African Republic, who was an estranged cousin of Beit."
• ", having set himself a goal of reaching Bulawayo by 26 September 1888"

Negotiations

• "at his private quarters—a stone house surrounded by 20 huts, each of which housed one of the king's wives"
• " who took off their hats, saluted him as khumalo (royal chief), and shook hands with him in turn. Lobengula then climbed up onto his royal wagon to sit on its driving box. "
• "Following this conversation, Thompson wrote in his expeditionary journal of how impressed he had been by Lobengula's apparent intelligence"
• "His visit was designed to help advance Rhodes' interests, but Rudd, who was unaware of Shippard's support, actually received his intervention with annoyance, complaining that it might delay the concession."
• " "We must beat them or join hands as you deem fit," Rhodes concluded."
• ""You must not leave a vacuum," Rhodes instructed. "Leave Thompson and Maguire if necessary or wait until I can join ... if we get anything we must always have someone resident or else they [the other concession-hunters] will intrigue and upset us""
• "Following these talks, Rudd continued to express vexation at the slow progress, writing in his journal that "there seems to be no way of pushing the King on".[49]"
• " Rudd and Dreyer nearly died on the road from dehydration, but they were rescued by a group of Tswana, who briefly nursed them before sending them on their way."
• He added that the envoys only wanted to meet with Queen Victoria to see that she really existed, and that "in good hands the visit may be advantageous to British interests".

Lobengula's enquiry

• "by the other whites, particularly Tainton, W. F. Usher, Moss Cohen (a trader) and the American concession-hunter Henry Clay Moore" -- doesn't seem necessary to list names here beyond Tainton; none appear to be discussed further

Babayane and Mshete in England

• "For the two izinDuna, many of the things they saw on their journey were completely new, and the ocean was just one of these. Lord Cavendish's wife, Lady Cavendish, was also aboard ship, and she soon engaged the envoys in conversation. She assured them that Queen Victoria—the great "White Queen", as the Matabele called her—really did exist, and that she could categorically say so as she knew her personally and had often kissed her hand. One of the izinDuna replied: "We believe it, as you say so, but we are taking our own eyes to see."[73] They disembarked at Southampton, and travelled by train to London, where they checked into the Berners Hotel on Oxford Street.[73]"
• As they made their way through the palace, the izinDuna were impressed by the royal guardsmen lining the rooms and corridors. When they reached the queen, she welcomed them, saying "You have come a very long way to see me; I hope the journey has been made pleasant for you, and that you did not suffer from the cold."[73] "How should we feel cold in the presence of the great White Queen?" one of the izinDuna replied; "Is it not in the power of great kings and queens to make it either hot or cold?"[73]
• "After the audience they were interviewed by journalists, who asked them, amongst other things, which of the woman in the palace was the most beautiful; they replied Lady Churchill, mother of the young Winston"
• "When they were invited to speak to each other by telephone, they were astonished that the machine had learned Sindebele so quickly. "

• Thank you for all of these suggestions. I have implemented the bulk of them; some I feel add to the article, so I've merely clipped them down (for example, I felt it pertinent to mention Rhodes, Shippard and Robinson met on Christmas Day 1887). A couple, for example the bit about Rudd and Dreyer nearly dying from dehydration on the road, I've moved down to footnotes. The bit about Barney Barnato I left in because I feel it is only a few words but it adds a lot of context and flavour, as well as concisely letting the reader know what kind of people were getting rich in South African diamonds in those days. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate your implementing so many. The article has gone from 70 to 65kb readable prose; still not ideal, but definitely getting leaner. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Other comments

• "Whitehall perceived " -- better not to use "Whitehall" as a metonym for the British government, for ease of comprehension-- would simply saying "the British government" be appropriate here?

• I understand it may not be completely familiar, but it is the term commonly used in the source material and is fairly well known as the metonym for Her Majesty's Government (for some reason it is not generally referred to as "London"). I've changed the first usage to be "Britain's ministers at Whitehall", with a wikilink on Whitehall; is this clearer?

• Very good solution, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Robinson wrote to Knutsford on 21 July to recommend that Whitehall backed this idea" -- this phrase confuses me. Did he recommend that Whitehall should back this idea or that Whitehall already had backed this idea? -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've reworded this: "Robinson wrote to Knutsford on 21 July that he thought Whitehall should back this idea"

• "Stick to Home Rule and Matabeleland for the Matabele I am sure it is the ticket." -- is there a missing punctuation mark after "Matabele"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's exactly how it appears in the source. The message was a telegram and it seems Rhodes often omitted punctuation in these. I thought before that keeping it as it was helped show the fast pace of all that was going on, but I think on reflection I'll put a comma in there after Matabele

• No problem either way--just wanted to double-check. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is it possible to increase the font size of the concession's text? I had to zoom in a bit to read that comfortably. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I've made it bigger

• "smelled a rat," -- rewrite in plain langugage per WP:IDIOM

• Reworded

• "Rhodes brought to the table " -- also idiom

• OK

• " (misspelling "Rochfort", Maguire's middle name, as "Rochford")" -- this small point might be moved to a footnote, or a "sic" added -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Had [sic] in there before but thought it was intrusive, have put back —Cliftonian (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• All in all thank you very much for the very thorough and helpful review so far, I look forward to continuing —Cliftonian (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Overall, I think this is very close to Good Article status from the checks I've made so far. Thanks for your tremendous work on it.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See small clarity points noted above. Spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Needs a few idioms rewritten to meet WP:WTW
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article provides terrific coverage of topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	At times, this article appears to me to be unnecessarily detailed; examples are above. Article is maybe a bit on the long side, but within GA requirements at this point.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Rudd_Concession.jpg, File:Lobengula-image.jpg, File:Cecil Rhodes by Violet manners.jpg, File:LordRosmead.jpg, File:Knutsford1.JPG, File:Harris - Ndebelekraal.png, File:Battle of the Shangani.jpg, and File:Bell - Our Zoola Guard of Honour (1835).png all appear to need tags for their US copyright status. File:Flag of BSAC edit.svg has an unlikely copyright claim--that the uploader owns the copyright to the flag of the BSAC.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Excellent selection of images and maps.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

All right--looks like the only thing left is to clarify the public domain tags on the images. (They need their US copyright status listed because that's where the Wikipedia servers are.) See above under 6a. Thanks again for your work, and congrats on the DYK appearance! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm not so familiar with public domain tagging but I worked my way through the list above and think I've got them all properly labelled. You may just want to check them to see I got it all right? Thanks again for the thorough and helpful review thus far —Cliftonian (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Those tags look sufficient to me. Given the time frame these images would have appeared, they should all be fine. Thanks for another quick response. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)