Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bronkhorstspruit/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 via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2023 [1].

Battle of Bronkhorstspruit[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This has undergone a Good article review followed by an A-class review from WP:MILHIST. It's been a while since I've nominated here, but I've been back reviewing for a few months, so I'm pretty happy that this should be there or thereabouts. As always, all input is welcome. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Page range for Laband 2021?
  • Infobox: the uninitiated may be confused by reading that the battle was a "Boer victory" when the Boers are not listed as one of the belligerents.
    • Someone made some changes to the infobox and got rid of "Boers" from the combatants field. Readjusted. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "Dutch" really need linking?
    • I only linked because it directs to the historical, rather than modern state. Can remove if you feel strongly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care that much. It doesn't seem helpful and is something of an Easter egg - I was expecting something on the Dutch as an ethnic group.
Removed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Transvaal in 1877. The last of these annexations occurred even though Britain had previously recognised the independence of the Boer South African Republic in that region." Could you make the connection for a reader? Was Transvaal part of the BSAR?
    • Expanded. Maybe too much. Let me know what you think. (This was sat in a sandbox I'm working on for the parent article on the overall war. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. But you have missed the last question. "The Transvaal" still appears out of the blue.
I've moved "an area the British called the Transvaal" a couple of sentences later to hopefully make it clearer. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Transvaal" or "Transvaal"?
    • Sort of both, but I've tried to tidy it up. It is used to refer to the region as a whole (the Transvaal) and the political entity (Transvaal). Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to use the same word to mean two different things - not something I recommend - you need to make this really clear for a reader.
  • "and the large number of wagons". The number of wagons has just been specified, so suggest deleting 'large number of'.
    • The sources specifically mention the size of the wagon-train being a slowing factor, I think removing this lowers the reader's understanding. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "24 days after receiving the order to return, Anstruther's column was confronted by the Boers. After demanding under truce that the British stop their march, which Anstruther refused, the Boers attacked. The British took heavy casualties and surrendered after about 15 minutes".
    • Rewrote, see what you think now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the elimination of the Zulu and Bapedi threats". Could this be unpacked a little?
    • Clarified a little: "By the end of 1879 British defeats of the Zulu and Bapedi, both of which had previously raided in the region.." Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a new Liberal Government in London". Why the upper-case G?
    • Who doesn't like capital letters?
  • "William Ewart Gladstone". Do the sources give his full name?
    • I have one which uses the full name, two which use "W.E. Gladstone", and one which uses "William Gladstone". As our article is at William Ewart Gladstone, I adopted that in the article. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • First map: How does one identify what is Transvaal and what Natal?
    • The border is marked along the river between Newcastle and Wakkerstroom. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By 'eck lad, tha's reet, but it ain't 'alf difficult to spot. Any chance you could find someone who knows their way around maps to colour code the two?
  • "who had command of the garrison at Lydenburg". Is "had" necessary?
    • Changed to "commanded". Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "taking somewhere in the region of 245–270 soldiers". Optional: 'taking approximately 245–270 soldiers'.
    • Much better, thank you. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and to guide and look after the oxen." guide the oxen?
    • Can probably be considered synonymous with driving the wagons, I suppose? Can remove it if you'd like. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think paraphrasing to "drive" would be an improvement.
Trimmed to "..to drive the wagons and look after the oxen." Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anstruther received communication". Perhaps insert an indefinite article?
  • "planned their attack the next morning". Did the planning take place the next morning, or was that the proposed time of the planned attack?
    • Rejigged to clarify. I think I swapped this last night, and didn't notice the ambiguity. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No link for Anglo-Pedi Wars?
    • Nothing ideal. I've tweaked it slightly to [[Sekhukhune#Sekhukhune Wars|Pedi wars]] Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Felix Machanik suggested that ... he believed". So, did he suggest, believe, or suggest that he believed?
    • Changed the first to "said". Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The two Boer forces rendezvoused". What two forces?
    • For sake of terminology, the Heidelberg and Middelburg commandos. I guess what you're getting at is that you want this repeating for clarification in the article? Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat? I don't see it at all. I have just reread and still don't. The prose left the Boers with "He left Heidelberg on 18 December and rendezvoused with two other forces en route. They camped halfway between Pretoria and Bronkhorstspruit overnight on 19 December and the next morning planned their attack." So three groups had already joined up; two of them are unnamed. Hang on; got it. Strongly suggest 1. "Laband also says that Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg, ordering them to travel parallel to the British, but hidden from them." ? 'Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg, ordering them to travel parallel to the British, but hidden from them.' and 2. actually say what happened. They were ordered to do something; yes, good - what, if anything did they then do?
Changed 1. as suggested. The answer for two is: they rendezvoused with the other Boer force. I included this in the article, by saying: "The two Boer forces rendezvoused". But seriously, I agree that it is frustrating, but that's all I have from the sources, other than an oblique reference that the Brits actually noticed their horses at a farm on the early morning of the 20th, but thought nothing of it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your comments from my Mercenary War articles come to mind.
You write "Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg, ordering them to travel parallel to the British, but hidden from them." Will the sources stretch to making this 'Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg; a commando from there travelled parallel to the British, but hidden from them' or similar?
I actually read the source carefully, and not only am I happy to do that, I've added a bit more on the above. So we now have: "Francois Joubert mobilised the Boer militia in Middelburg; a commando from there travelled parallel to the British, but hidden from them, though at one stage British officers noticed an unusually large number of riding horses at a Boer farm, but thought nothing of it." Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a skirmishing line" ? 'a skirmish line'.
  • "Nonetheless, Anstruther replied that". Does nonetheless add anything? Much as I like the word. (Perhaps 'Notwithstanding'?)
  • "and their numbers had grown to 250–300". I am a little puzzles, how had that happened?
    • From the source "From various eye-witness reports it would appear that the main Boer party had not only increased in numbers during the negotiations to about 250-300.." I could expand to some variation of "and more had appeared, swelling their numbers to 250–300." Or include the "eye-witness" part. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it with you. Maybe something like "and they were reinforced to a strength of ..."
My issue with that wording is that my impression is that they were always there or thereabouts, just not visible to the British. How about a simple "..and their visible numbers had grown to.."? Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about "While this discussion had been happening, the 250-300 Boers had closed to within 160–220 yards (150–200 m) of the British column"
Sure that works. I've also switched to the wider "200–300" estimate based on all the sources, rather than just Duxbury. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who had received five wounds". Why "had"?
  • "Lead: most of their surviving men being captured." I don't see this in the article, which strongly suggests that all of those not killed or wounded surrendered.
    • I suppose technically, they were all captured, but because the sources tend to talk about those who recovered then being taken as prisoners, I wasn't including the wounded as being captured. See Duxbury for example: "He also allowed twenty unwounded men to remain behind to help bury the dead and assist with the wounded. The remainder of the unwounded were taken prisoners." Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that here you are using "technically" as a synonym for 'in fact'? If immediately after the battle all of the Brits were killed or captured, say so.
Okay. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while around 30 of those who had recovered were taken as additional prisoners". So there were others who had recovered who were not taken as prisoners?
    • The sources aren't any clearer than this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot of article for a single paragraph of battle. :-)
    • @Gog the Mild: Ha. Have responded to all above, though I'm sure you'll have come backs on some. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looking good. As you guessed - how did you know? - a couple of come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now even more article for the single battle paragraph. :-))
@Gog the Mild: More changes, more responses, but I trimmed the Background section back a touch. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you're done and I'll give it another run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Go for it, I think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second look[edit]
  • "Boer commando force". Isn't "force" just repeating "commando". ('British regiment force') I assume it wasn't a force of commandos?
    • Good point, I think the latter, which I'm more used to, is why I did it. Trimmed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Transvaal region had a population of around 36,000 to 45,000 Boers". Just for my information, does that include women and children? Ditto the Pretoria figure and the British settlers.
    • The source doesn't say. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "describes Anstruther as seeming". Optional: lose "seeming".
  • Does "close formation" merit linking to Close order formation

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Cheers. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A really smooth and informative read. So much so that I shall even overlook the plethora of background information and support. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere, eg the number captured
    • The ins and outs around how many were captured has been a sticking point. I've removed it from the infobox altogether for the moment. As far as I can tell, everything else there is sourced in the prose. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering sources without authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Book sources, then an online source, then newspaper sources. I'm not averse to reordering if you have a preference. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest if you're not going to explicitly section by source type, it might make more sense to make them title alphabetical. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also not a source comment, but "the Boers while the British soldiers were still preparing" seems to be missing a word or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Nikkimaria, the word "attacked" seems to have gone missing while I was making changes! Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've split the books off from the others in sub-sections, and ordered the latter alphabetically by title, how is that? Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "In response, Hugh Childers, the Secretary of State for War said" - should that be "In response, Hugh Childers, the Secretary of State for War, said".....? Could move "in response" to after "said" if that results in too many commas
    • Good spot. Tweaked, and moved "in response" as suggested. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each town raised its own militia unit, known as a commando," - already mentioned above, so surely the wikilink should be there.....?
  • "The South African historian Felix Machanik said that although common wisdom held that the British had the superior firearms and firepower," => "The South African historian Felix Machanik said that, although common wisdom held that the British had the superior firearms and firepower,"
    • I'm always happy to add in more commas! Added. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two Boer forces rendezvoused during the morning of the 20th near the and waited for the British column" - there's definitely a word missing in there
    • Took me a while, but I worked out what happened here. I was going to mentioned it was near the Honde River, but as it isn't the better known Honde River, I took it out as I was worried it would be more confusing than beneficial. Apparently, I forgot to take out the critical words around it. Removed "near the". Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The messenger, who spoke English, presented Anstruther with a letter from the Boer leaders in Heidelberg, instructing him to "stop where you are", and that any further movement" - if the messenger said the bit about movement then it should be "The messenger, who spoke English, presented Anstruther with a letter from the Boer leaders in Heidelberg, instructing him to "stop where you are", and stated that any further movement". If the letter mentioned it then it should be "The messenger, who spoke English, presented Anstruther with a letter from the Boer leaders in Heidelberg, instructing him to "stop where you are" and stating that any further movement"
    • Tweaked to the second suggestion, as it was included in the letter. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson[edit]

Thanks for reviewing my Damen article, I also have an FAC peer review going for Ministerial by-election, if that's of interest to the Brits here.

A few comments starting out:

  • despite repeated calls from administrators for the federalisation of the southern African states links merely to federalism; would this have entailed the coerced merger of the Transvaal republics into a federation with British holdings? If so, this might be well to explain.
    • Expanded to "despite repeated calls from administrators for the forced merger and federalisation of the southern African states under British control". Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the end of 1879 British defeats of the Zulu and Bapedi, both of which had previously raided in the region, had removed any tolerance that the majority of the Boer population may have had for the protective presence of British troops and administrators in the Transvaal. Wouldn't the Boers have supported anti-Zulu measures? Or was "British defeats by the Zulu and Bapedi" meant?
  • A few refnums need to be swapped.
    • Not an MOS or FAC requirement. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but a good practice none the less (was actually somewhat surprised of the MoS not saying anything on it); I've swapped the only occurrence of out of order refs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise good work. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: Thanks for the review, replies above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support from me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MaxnaCarta[edit]

I've reviewed all feedback provided by other editors. It appears that all concerns have been promptly and properly addressed by the nominator. Looking at the article itself, this appears to be very well written. As someone without any background knowledge of the subject matter, this article comes across as engaging and comprehensive. It flows well and appears of a high standard. It is written from a neutral perspective, is well structured, and uses a consistent referencing style throughout. The length strikes a balance between covering the subject sufficiently and yet summarising the content and being digestible to the reader. I therefore support the article being promoted.MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Bronkhorstspruit/archive1&oldid=1154677139"