Talk:Air Rhodesia Flight 825/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 10:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

This article is in very good shape, and I found it to be a facinating, though horrifying, read. I have the following comments and questions, and recognise that it's unlikely that sources will exist to permit all of them to be answered.

• The final sentence in the first para of the lead isn't needed (this background is too much information here)

• Ok

• While the block quotes in the background section provide a useful taste of the kind of attitudes which underpinned this conflict, they seem a bit out of place in this article

• I put them in to break up what looked like a bit of a wall of text, but perhaps you are right

• "In March 1978, Smith agreed the Internal Settlement with more moderate nationalists" - this wording is a bit awkward (how about "In March 1978, Smith and moderate nationalists reached agreement on the "Internal Settlement", or similar?)

• Ok, have replaced with "In March 1978, Smith and moderate nationalists Bishop Abel Muzorewa and the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole reached agreement on what became termed the "Internal Settlement"."

• That's great (the extra precision of naming who he was negotiating with really helps) Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Had there been any attacks on Rhodesian military or civilian aircraft prior to this incident?

• Have added a new paragraph on this kind of thing at the top of the incident section.

• Was this a deliberate pre-planned attack on the aircraft, or did the ZIPRA unit happen to be passing by and/or operating without specific orders to target civilian aircraft?

• I can't find a source that says. I'll keep looking.

• Related to this, did ZIPRA have many Strela 2 missiles at this time?

• Don't have numbers, but they had quite a few; see the new paragraph.

• That works for me Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why was there no international response to the attack, and how did this compare to the responses to other incidents in the war?

• Petter-Bowyer (p. 331) says "The Western world heard this quite clearly but chose to ignore the horror because Rhodesia continued to be a hindrance to the West's obvious desire to turn the country over to communists." A view I know quite a few people would sympathise with, but quite definitely not a neutral one. Other incidents in the war also received very little (if any) response, for example the Elim missionary massacre mentioned in the background section of this article, and other similar incidents. Rhodesian attacks on guerrilla bases, by contrast, received great publicity in international circles, with Rhodesia receiving much condemnation in the UN, OAU etc for attacking refugee camps (even when ZANLA's internal literature contradicted this description, but that's another story). In short the international reaction, perhaps better termed simply as a lack of one, was pretty typical of the war on a whole.

• OK. As I understand it, there wasn't much syphathy for the white Rhodesians by this time internationally (even the South Africans were getting sick of the war). Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is correct. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are the figures for the casualties the Rhodesians inflicted considered credible? (especially in the attack on Zambia). They look rather high, and there's a long history of aviators of all countries greatly over-estimating the effectiveness of their operations

• The source doesn't say.

• I've rummaged through my books, and it turned out that I own a 1982 edition of Moorcraft and McLaughlin's book which I bought second hand years ago. They describe the attack on Zambia on page 202, and state that while the Rhodesians claimed to have inflicted 1500 fatalities on ZIPRA, the bulk of the forces in the country were actually unscathed, "hundreds of refugees living in and near the camps were killed" and the Rhodesian gunners would have been unable to tell the difference between ZIPRA personnel and civilians. It notes that the attack demonstrated the Rhodesian military's prowess and raised Rhodesian morale, but states it had few long-term effects. Is this also in your later edition? Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• In my version this passage is on page 155. I have added some more: "Historians Paul Moorcraft and Peter McLaughlin write that this exaggerated considerably the actual number of guerrillas killed, as most of Nkomo's army, then numbering about 10,000 fighters, had not been touched. On the other hand, unarmed refugees often camped in or around insurgent positions, and hundreds of these had been killed in the Rhodesian raid. Moorcraft and McLaughlin comment that for the Rhodesian airmen, it would have been "impossible to distinguish innocent refugees from young ZIPRA recruits." The stuff on the lack of long-term effects is already present in the "aftermath" section ("The Rhodesian attacks on ZANLA and ZIPRA bases did much to restore white morale following the Viscount incident, though they had not actually made much impact on the respective nationalist campaigns"). —Cliftonian (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• That looks good Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I also own this book which is also available online. While it wouldn't be of much use in adding details to articles on the chronology of the war such as this one, it provides quite good analysis of the Rhodesian security forces which might be useful to you for other articles (though, IMO, its authors fell into the surprisingly common trap of focusing on the successes of the Rhodesian military to such an extent that they're essentially unable to explain why the war ended the way it did - Moorcraft and McLaughlin seem to do a much better job of this based on the parts of their book I've read). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for this, I think it will be handy in future work. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• The ultimate source of File:Joshua Nkomo cropped 1975.png seems rather unclear Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's cropped from another file, File:Jnkomo.jpg, which has the following source information: "Photo taken from article: "Joshua Nkomo: Rhodesia’s Leading Black" with the following permissions: Robin Wright is an Alicia Patterson Foundation award winner on leave from The Christian Science Monitor. This article may be published with credit to Robin Wright, The Christian Science Monitor, and the Alicia Patterson Foundation". I don't know quite what to make of this

• I don't think that it's free - it appears to have been scanned from the magazine, and so is probably under copyright. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've taken it out. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, I haven't much time right now so haven't answered all the issues, but will do as soon as I can, thanks again and hope you're well —Cliftonian (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, here are my proper responses. I hope they are helpful. Thank you again for the great review. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great work with this article - I don't see any barriers to it also passing an A class review, and would require only copy editing to meet the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you very much for the review, Nick, which was great, as your reviews always are. I will take your advice and list this for an A class review now. Thanks again and have a great weekend! —Cliftonian (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)