Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhodesia Information Centre/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 December 2022 [1].

Rhodesia Information Centre edit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rhodesia Information Centre was the unofficial, and illegal, embassy the Rhodesian government maintained in Australia from 1966 to 1980. As the Australian government did not recognise Rhodesia's independence it had almost no contact with Australian officials. Instead, it spread propaganda trying to win Australians over to the white minority regime in Rhodesia and helped businesses evade the trade sanctions against the country. The Rhodesian Information Centre survived multiple attempts by the Australian government to close it, including one which led to a High Court case in 1973 and another which caused a backbench revolt in 1977, and was finally shut down by the Zimbabwean government in 1980. As a result, while this is a slightly obscure topic, the article covers a lively period in Australian foreign relations and provides insights into Australian attitudes towards white minority rule in Africa during this period.

This is my first non-military history FAC. I developed the article as a lockdown project after becoming interested in the topic after the Bradley v Commonwealth article appeared as a DYK in August 2021. The article passed a GA nomination in September that year. It's since been considerably expanded. I'd like to acknowledge the historian Matthew Jordan who, during the period last year before libraries reopened, kindly sent me a copy of his impressive volume of official documents and analysis concerning the Australian government's approach to Rhodesia. Thank you in advance to reviewers for your consideration of this nomination and comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Rhodesia_Information_Centre_in_December_1972_-_fair_use_claimed.jpg: the tag currently in use is for cases where the illustration is of the newspaper article/issue - that's not the case here. Suggest using a different tag.
  • File:Zimbabwe_Australia_Locator.png is tagged as lacking description, and is missing a source for the base image. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a description, but can't find the base image: I suspect I'll end up recreating this. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

  • Support I have previously made 2 edits to this page on sourcing and linking. But I was not involved with the addition of information. From what I see, it does meet the FA criteria. It includes all the information that one would expect to see in a chronological order. Sourcing is good and links all go to the correct destinations as far as I could find. Well done on a well written article @Nick-D:. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from a455bcd9 edit

Interesting article, I didn't know anything about this subject: thanks and congrats! A few comments:

  • "UDI" is neither defined nor linked when first mentioned
    • It's linked at the first mention, and I've just added the acronym. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it "UDI" or "the UDI". And actually, should it be used at all, especially in titles?
    • Sources generally use 'UDI', and it's the common term for Rhodesia's period of independence and is almost universally used in sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No country ever formally recognised Rhodesia as an independent state" but "Only South Africa and Portugal were willing to enter into formal diplomatic relations with the country.": I don't understand
    • I've adjusted the wording here to focus on issues within the scope of the article (e.g. the status of Rhodesia's diplomats). While South Africa and Portugal didn't formally recognise Rhodesia's independence, they treated it as an independent state and provided essential support. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enforcement of trade sanctions was also uneven, and was undertaken through regulations rather than legislation.": what does this mean? What does it make a difference if trade sanctions are enforced through regulations rather than legislation?
    • Regulations are open to interpretation and can be easily changed by officials or ministers. Legislation provides stronger enforcement, as it clarifies things and can't be easily changed. I've tweaked the wording. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the quantity of Australian goods exported to Rhodesia increased between 1965 and 1973": by how much? what kind of goods were exported?
    • The source doesn't say, but that seems outside the article's scope. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "T.A. Cresswell-George": do we have his full name?
    • Afraid not. The source and media coverage of him in the NLA's Trove service consistently call him 'T.A. Cresswell-George'. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rhodesian Ministry of Information" and "Rhodesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs": should we link the whole express or only the last terms?
    • I think only the last terms. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rhodesia-Australia Associations": plural or singular? (singular in Rhodesia-Australia Association)
  • Sekai Holland: should we introduce her by adding "human rights activist"?
    • She was an activist for majority rule really. I've tweaked the text. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Croatian independence campaigner": more context, at least in a footnote, would be appreciated. For instance: "Back then, the Socialist Republic of Croatia was part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
    • That seems outside this article's scope. The fact that there was a campaign for Croatia's independence should explain to readers that it wasn't independent at the time. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a reader and it wasn't clear for me. That's why I suggested a footnote. At the very least, I would change "Croatian independence" to "Croatian independence". A455bcd9 (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Link added Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "majority rule": not defined, not linked. What does it mean? Isn't "democracy" better?
    • As noted in the article, Rhodesia was ruled by the small white minority. The campaign during the 1960s and 1970s was to establish majority rule so the black minority could have say and a chance to run the country. Unfortunately, neither side was really all that interested in genuine democracy. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "the black minority" => majority? OK but the term "majority rule" should be linked or defined somewhere. Same for Minority rule. These terms are very specific (example of a definition). A455bcd9 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Links added as suggested. I've also added some extra material on this issue to provide context - this also helps explain why Rhodesia was controversial. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rhodesian Security Forces" (2x) or "Rhodesian security forces" (1x)?

A455bcd9 (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'm happy to support. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment edit

The article uses several Newspapers.com links that are not properly clipped. Please follow the steps at WP:Newspapers.com if you are able to do so. SounderBruce 03:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment, I've just made that change. Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Compare the formatting of Jordan, Jansen, Michael, and Loughnan; all are Ph.D. theses, but differ in their use of publisher, location, and indication that the source is a thesis.
    • I've added a location for Michael to standardise with Loughnan. Neither of the two works by Jordan are PhD theses: the first is a (very large) book and the second is a journal article. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I meant Jansen, not Jordan. All now have locations but Loughnan has "PHD thesis" while the others have "(PHD thesis)". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I see what you mean: fixed, I think. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That was it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the three web citations you give the website name only FN 102 and not for FNs 39 & 84. Also 102 has "Tade" which should presumably be "Trade".
    • No separate sub-website name is given for 39 and 84, so listing the publishers seems sufficient, not least as these accurately describe the sources given the nature of the works (a speech in the NSW Parliament and a UN resolution). A sub-website is identified for 102. I've fixed the spelling. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a dozen or more citations to newspapers.com that haven't been clipped, so the link is paywalled.
    • Clips added - that's handy feature I didn't know existed until this review. Free trial subscriptions are available for newspapers.com, so it's a soft-ish paywall. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the clippings left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Many thanks for these comments. I think that I may have now addressed them. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Nick, you can get free access to newspapers.com and the British Newspaper Archive via WP:LIBRARY; I can't recommend it highly enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have access via that resource, and it's excellent. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eddie891 edit

I'll have a read through. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • this might be just an americanism but I think there are a few usages of "being" that the article could lose. Suggest reading through them and asking yourself if the sentence can be read without it and consider removing -- i.e. "The RIC was registered as a business in New South Wales, with the state government being aware from the outset that it was operated by the Rhodesian government." -> "The RIC was registered as a business in New South Wales, with the state government aware from the outset that it was operated by the Rhodesian government."
    • Good pickup - I've trimmed them. As my staff can confirm, I have some eccentricities with wording. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 1964, the population comprised" I'd suggest "in 1964", as as of for me holds connotations that something is the most up to date figure we have
  • "the United Nations Security Council directed" My impression is that the UNSC doesn't really 'direct' nations to do things like this, but more requests or 'calls upon'. Without having looked at the source, is directed really the best word here?
    • Also a good pick up - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from public relations activities or promoting trade with or migration" it feels to me like 'with' is out of place here, thoughts?
  • "The Australian Trade Commission in the Rhodesian capital of Salisbury was also closed" also in December 1965 as a result of British lobbying? If yes, maybe combine with the preceding sentence?
    • No, it was an independent act (part of the limited set of measures the government was willing to bring in at the time) Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and replaced with the Rhodesian Information Centre" Suggest redefining acronym after first mention
  • Our article is at De facto embassy. Thoughts on italicization?
    • Strongly in favour of this, and added. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he visited the department's offices on 2 December 1966." I think this sentence has some room for confusion as to who "he" is
  • "He gained Cabinet's agreement" perhaps "the Cabinet's"?
  • " commitments for protect individual liberties and freedom of speech" perhaps "to protect" or "for protecting"?
  • "that 40 government members " would it be possible to approximate out of how many so the reader can tell whether this is a significant or small number?
    • Good point - added (out of 126) Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gave a commitment in Parliament any legislation that introduced" missing a word? My brain wants "gave a commitment in parliament that any legislation that was introduced..." or "gave a commitment in parliament that any legislation introduced..."
  • and the federal Cabinet was intending." I don't think this is the first time you mention Australia's cabinet. Aand I think the first half of the sentence makes it unclear which 'federal cabinet' is referenced here. Suggest "and Australia's federal Cabinet"
    • Tweaked. I think which cabinet is referred to should be clear in this context. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Zimbabwean embassy was later established in Canberra." possible to date this at all?

Very nice work, minor things. Many are probably my thick-headedness... Eddie891 Talk Work 14:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eddie891: Thank you for these comments. I think that I may have now addressed them. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the responses, happy to Support. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:01, 23 December 2022 (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/Rhodesia_Information_Centre/archive1&oldid=1129370647"