Wikipedia:Featured article candidatesRhodesian mission in Lisbon/archive1
- 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 not promoted by GrahamColm 22:39, 4 October 2012 [1].
Lisbon Appointment edit
Lisbon Appointment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 1963, Britain's Duncan Sandys horrified Roy Welensky of Federal Rhodesia and Nyasaland by telling him "we British have lost the will to govern." Julian Greenfield, one of Welensky's ministers, snapped back "But we haven't." Amidst the wildly accelerated constitutional landslide associated with the Wind of Change, a significant headache for Britain was the significant white population in south-central Africa, who were far from ready to stop running their own affairs.
Rhodesia ultimately issued its Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on 11 November 1965, but UDI was preceded by an international quarrel over whether Rhodesia had to right to appoint its own foreign representation. Previous British legislation appeared to allow it in Rhodesia's eyes, but Whitehall disputed this. Ostracised by Britain for its staunch refusal to adapt to the new world of the 1960s, Rhodesia threw in its lot with Portugal, and announced its intention to open an independent representative mission in Lisbon in June 1965. Britain tried to stop this, but proved helpless to do so, and the office opened in September. It remained until 1975, when Portugal's post-Carnation Revolution government closed it.
This had a largely unproductive peer review recently, but I still feel it is ready for FAC. I feel that the prose is of a high standard, that a neutral point of view is maintained, that the huge amount of necessary background is explained thoroughly without excessive detail, and that sourcing is at the level required. Images are used appropriately, I believe, without dominating the article.
Overall, I think this article provides a comprehensive overview of the Lisbon Appointment, which I personally find interesting as a less obvious parallel to UDI. The Portuguese link helped Rhodesia hugely during the UDI era, both economically and militarily, and the Lisbon office played no small part in this. I hope you find it interesting too.
Please note if you leave comments that unavoidable career commitments will severely restrict my ability to see them for most of each week. I am around on Wikipedia on Fridays and Saturdays (Jerusalem time, presently UTC+3). I would appreciate if administrators would also take this into account. Here is a link to see when I was last about. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Per MOS, dates should not use "th" at the end, see section "Britain despatches", uses "cabled back on the 18th..."
- My understanding was always that this only referred to "18 November" rather than "18th November". This article uses this correctly throughout. Where the month is omitted, "18th" rather than "18" is surely correct? "cabled back on the 18 accepting Hughes' visit" is, so far as I know, incorrect. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go with whatever the consensus is on this, I don't think that it is enough to hold up the article. GregJackP Boomer! 16:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me, thanks. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go with whatever the consensus is on this, I don't think that it is enough to hold up the article. GregJackP Boomer! 16:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding was always that this only referred to "18 November" rather than "18th November". This article uses this correctly throughout. Where the month is omitted, "18th" rather than "18" is surely correct? "cabled back on the 18 accepting Hughes' visit" is, so far as I know, incorrect. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In above section heading, "despatches" is misspelled.
- No it isn't. "Despatch" is an acceptable British-style alternative for "dispatch" that is commonly used in Commonwealth versions of English. This article in particular uses South African English. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No alt text for coat of arms image.
- That's part of a template rather than the article, and the template doesn't appear to have an alt text parameter. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick image check showed proper licensing.
- Lekker stuff. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If I get a chance, I'll look at it in more detail later. GregJackP Boomer! 16:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review so far, it is appreciated. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- Disclaimer: I didn't give any thought to POV issues.
- So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Lisbon Appointment#Early negotiations. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I've reorganised the background section a bit and added about an extra paragraph, giving more explanation about Britain's shift in policy c. 1957–1963. You might want to run over this again. Sorry for any inconvenience, and thanks again. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The new paragraph is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Dank. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The new paragraph is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I've reorganised the background section a bit and added about an extra paragraph, giving more explanation about Britain's shift in policy c. 1957–1963. You might want to run over this again. Sorry for any inconvenience, and thanks again. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Be consistent in whether you provide locations for journals and publishers for newspapers
- Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Online sources" should either all include location or none
- Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is Salisbury?
- It was renamed Harare in 1982, on Zimbabwe's second birthday. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Berlyn ISBN returns error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected it from the book. Thanks for the source review Nikkimaria. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still invalid: ISBN 0-86919-083-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum — click for error message; it's an invalid checksum (the last digit). Even correcting the digit still produces no results on Google or Worldcat. It could be printed wrong, but it seems like it is not a properly assigned ISBN. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the book in front of me. The exact wording is:
- ISBN 0 86919 083 4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: invalid character
- M. O. COLLINS (PVT) LTD
- Victoria Street, Salisbury, Rhodesia.
- April 1978
- Possibly a misprint, but otherwise I am at a loss. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no doubt that it's printed that way. But it's simply wrong. That never, ever, will be a valid ISBN, as the math is wrong. It's a typo on their part. Things were not done by machine then. The purpose of including the ISBN in the cite is to enable looking it up, and it won't ever be found in a computer search on that. Someone may reprint this someday, which would result in a valid ISBN being assigned, but in the mean time, I'd be inclined to omit it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then let's do that. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you with my tone, as that was not my intention. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that you cut it and looked back here. I wasn't offended, just being clear that it's busted. Reminder; it's also in use in Shangani Patrol. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers buddy. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that you cut it and looked back here. I wasn't offended, just being clear that it's busted. Reminder; it's also in use in Shangani Patrol. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then let's do that. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you with my tone, as that was not my intention. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no doubt that it's printed that way. But it's simply wrong. That never, ever, will be a valid ISBN, as the math is wrong. It's a typo on their part. Things were not done by machine then. The purpose of including the ISBN in the cite is to enable looking it up, and it won't ever be found in a computer search on that. Someone may reprint this someday, which would result in a valid ISBN being assigned, but in the mean time, I'd be inclined to omit it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the book in front of me. The exact wording is:
- It's still invalid: ISBN 0-86919-083-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum — click for error message; it's an invalid checksum (the last digit). Even correcting the digit still produces no results on Google or Worldcat. It could be printed wrong, but it seems like it is not a properly assigned ISBN. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected it from the book. Thanks for the source review Nikkimaria. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to all, particularly administrators: I will be off Wikipedia between 23 September and 5 October because of work commitments, and will not be available to answer queries and so on. I would appreciate if everybody would take this into account. I would particularly appreciate if this nomination would not be closed prematurely before 5 October due to perceived inaction on my part. I always endeavour to resolve issues as soon as I can, as I'm sure some of you know, and I look forward to jumping straight back into this as soon as I get back. Thanks all, and have a great couple weeks. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, Graham, but did I not ask for this to be kept open while I was away? I just got back this minute and saw that the nomination had been closed this morning. I suppose it's academic in any case as nobody seems to want to comment on this, but I'm still rather miffed, frankly. But hey-ho. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I kept it open until late last night. I closed it not "due to perceived inaction on [your] part", but because of total inaction – there have been no comments or reviews for nearly a month. Because there were no further points for you to address, I decided that a few hours would make little difference. Were it not for your request, I would have closed the nomination much earlier. Graham Colm (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. Thank you for the explanation, Graham. I'm sorry for flying off the handle at you like that. I'll keep on working on the article and perhaps nominate it again later. I hope you're well, and have a great weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I kept it open until late last night. I closed it not "due to perceived inaction on [your] part", but because of total inaction – there have been no comments or reviews for nearly a month. Because there were no further points for you to address, I decided that a few hours would make little difference. Were it not for your request, I would have closed the nomination much earlier. Graham Colm (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.