Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Elands River (1900)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Elands River (1900) edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) and AustralianRupert (talk)

Battle of Elands River (1900) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about an action during the Second Boer War that become known as a moment of Australian resistance against overwhelming odds. The article was expanded by AustralianRupert back in 2012, and passed a GAN several months ago. Kges1901 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle edit

  • The "For other uses" disambiguation at the top of the page is too broad, as there is only a single alternative use. A different template should be used.
  • attacked a garrison of 500 Australian, Rhodesian, Canadian and British soldiers, who were stationed at Brakfontein Drift near the Elands River to act as a garrison for a British supply dump. Over the course of 13 days, the garrison was heavily shelled and attacked with small arms. "Attacked" is in two adjacent sentences. Perhaps changing one or the other would help.
  • The lead needs expansion. A little on the background would be nice, as would something about its implications.
  • a quantity of ammunition, food and other equipment worth over 100,000 pounds. Clarify that pounds is being used as a monetary value, not a measurement of weight.
  • Desperate for supplies, Boer forces decided to attack the garrison with the view to securing the supplies located there. "Supplies" X2. Perhaps "provisions" or "materiel", etc.
  • about 30 loyalist European settlers who, because of their support for the British, were being evacuated from the area. I presume this means that the settlers had withdrawn to the farm but had yet to actually evacuate? A minor clarification would help.
  • Wikilink pom-pom to QF 1-pounder pom-pom, if applicable.
    • Done.
  • Hore, who had been suffering from malaria, had become ill by this time. If we was suffering from malaria, he was already ill. Perhaps there's a better way to phrase how it worsened to a point where he could no longer effectively command.
  • This article says the garrison had only one machine, but the Australian War Memorial says it had two. The source also gives information that needs to be included, such as an estimate on the Boer's artillery output, the fact that the hospital was struck in the bombardment, and details on the burial and re-internment of those killed.
    • Added these details, thanks for locating that source. There is a discrepancy between Coulthard-Clark and Ross unfortunately, so I have added a range. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source (p. 196) says that the original garrison at Elands river was one of three positions established to guard the Mafeking-Pretoria supply line. Might be worth a clarification in the background.
  • The Rhodesiana article appears to have more info about this battle, such as the building which was used as a hospital and the implications of Carrington's bumbling relief efforts. Unless there are concerns about POV pushing (the journal was published in apartheid Rhoedesia), this info should be incorporated into the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will leave this one to Kges1901 as they probably know the source better than I do. Thanks for your comments. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinsey wrote several articles for the South African Military History Journal, so I do not think bias is an issue with Rhodesiana. Kges1901 (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Dawson 2010 RS for this? Sydney Daily Telegraph is described as a tabloid on its Wikipedia article. Kges1901 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem a controversial point to me, but anyway I've removed it and replaced it with Ransford & Kinsey's less precise figure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Indy beetle: G'day, Indy, I think that together we have covered off on your points, would you mind taking another look and letting us know if there is anything outstanding? Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor point, really, but Ransford & Kinsey say "An Australian in the relief force later commented that 'Carrington had earned an unenviable reputation among the men under his command'. The hurried retreat to Mafeking, he said, was 'something no Australian who took part will ever forget'.* When Lord Roberts heard of it he immediately ordered Carrington back to Elands River, but the cautious general moved so slowly that his troops only reached the camp after its relief". These details about Carrington being ordered back should be included in the article. A think a final glance over this journal article to make sure all points are covered should be made. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: Thanks, Indy, I think I have gotten the important points now, hopefully. Added a couple of minor points from Wilcox now I have access to a scan of the relevant pages. These are the changes: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to support. Well done. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    • Upscaled to 325px, but I was a bit concerned about sandwiching so I didn't go beyond that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, should clarify - scaling should generally be done using |upright= rather than fixed px size, to respect different default image sizes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:AWM_A05317_3rd_New_South_Wales_Bushmen_Elands_River_1901.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:AWM_A05318_Sangars_at_Elands_River.jpg, File:AWM_A05312_Graves_of_Australians_killed_at_Elands_River_1900.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, Nikki, thanks for taking a look at this. I have adjusted the licences and descriptions as they are owned by the Australian government and are more than 50 years old. The AWM entries indicate they are PD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed edit

  • the word garrison is used twice in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, suggest rephrasing. It happens again in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead (actually four times in the first three sentences of the 2nd paragraph).
  • the word ultimately is also used in successive sentences at the end of the lead.
  • the word position is used several times in the third paragraph of the background section. Probably substitute one or more of these with posts or the like.
  • Prelude: "...prior to being withdrawn further." The use of further seems a bit vague, do we know where (presumably a more secure location).
  • Battle: "A third position, about 4,300 yards (3,900 m) away, consisting of an artillery piece..." I think it may be preferable to not use position here; I read it initially as being one of the three of the Elands River garrison before realising it was actually referring to the Boers.
  • Battle: "the telegraph line was destroyed, while a considerable amount of stores were destroyed" repeated use of destroyed, suggest rephrasing to "the telegraph line was destroyed, along with a considerable amount of stores."
  • Battle: "his opposite number, however..." presumably this is Gore, why not name him?
    • The source doesn't specifically say it was Hore at this point, so I went with something a bit more generic. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle: "it was marked with Red Cross flag..." I added the "a" to this, but it occurs to me possibly it should be "flags"?
  • Battle: "Baden-Powell, despite having a superior force, delayed just 8 miles" should that be was delayed?
    • Went with "halted" as I think that conveys the more correct meaning in the circumstances. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle: " Based on the reports provided by Carrington upon his return..." in this sentence Baden-Powell is mentioned three times, possibly rephrase?
  • Battle: "...attacks on nearby farms by members of the Kgatla tribe." Why would the tribe be attacking? Were they hostile to the Boer settlers?
  • The Beckett reference, RE location, do we have a state (presumably Oklahoma)? The Wilcox ref also needs a state for consistency with the other refs.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thank you for taking a look at this. I think I've gotten everything. Please let me know if there is anything more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Gog the Mild - Support edit

  • ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated.
  • Would it be possible to alternatively cite the single reference to Wisser? There is nothing wrong with it per se, but I do not think it appropriate to use sources published while the conflict was still ongoing.
  • Have replaced it as Ransford and Kinsey essentially says the same thing.
  • The source, Rainsford and Kinsey, does not seem to support the article's contention that Carrington's new command was "nominal", nor that it was the Rhodesian Field Force.
  • The 'nominal' is from Beckett and so is the fact that Carrington remained in Rhodesia. The British troops in Rhodesia at the time were called the Rhodesian Field Force, which is why I included that. Kges1901 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But in that case, just what is Rainsford and Kinsey [18], which comes immediately after "Carrington continued nominal command of the Rhodesian Field Force", citing?
  • Removed as it isn't really necessary.

All of the sources seem appropriately reliable. I had my doubts regarding Rhodesiana, but digging into it it is up to scratch. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. With the minor exception above the sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked it. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the information in them to be current. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

@Kges1901 and AustralianRupert: Three comments above for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for taking a look at this Gog. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gog the Mild edit

Disclosure: I assessed this article at GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion over putting "support" against the source review. What is the correct procedure for indicating that a source review is satisfactory?

No worries, the confusion was mostly mine, I'm sure. Not sure there is a set way, but I would probably just write some variation of "source review - passed" or something like that? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds sensible, will do.
  • " The Boer force, which consisted of several commandos under Koos de la Rey" Maybe 'under the overall command of'? I assume that each commando had its own commander?
  • Done, good catch.
Not done.
  • Done, didn't realize it was in the lead. Kges1901 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and others who had melted away into civilian life to avoid capture upon surrender" This doesn't really make sense to me: "avoid capture upon surrender"?
  • Done, removed as redundant
  • "about 1 kilometre (0.62 mi)" Spurious accuracy in the conversion.
  • I don't see how this is an issue
It's not a deal breaker, but it seems silly to convert about 1 km to the nearest 20 m/yd.
  • G'day, I've added the sigfig param. Does this address the concern? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Thank you.
  • "the ground to the north, south and west of the supply dump dropped to the river where the Reit Valley opened towards Zeerust 50 kilometres (31 mi) away" I know what you are trying to say here, but it reads as if the ground dropped for 50 km.
  • Added a comma before the 50 km statement.
  • Optional: "Little attempt had been made, however, to dig-in as the ground … " Personally I would delete "however" and insert a comma after "dig-in".
  • Done
  • "with 105 being from A Squadron of the New South Wales Citizen Bushmen and 141 from the Queensland Citizen Bushmen along with 42 Victorians and nine Western Australians from the 3rd Bushmen Regiment as well as two from Tasmania." This is a heck of a partial sentence, and not a single comma. Consider rewording? Or at least adding some punctuation.
  • Have added commas.
  • "along with three Canadians and three British" Should that not be 'Britons'?
  • Done
  • Optional: "were being evacuated from the area, and had moved to the farm prior to being withdrawn from the area" Two "the area"s.
  • Combined both clauses because this can be said with only one clause.
  • "although their casualties were light, consisting of only 17 wounded, they were forced to withdraw." Just checking that "forced" accurately reflects the source cited and the consensus of other sources. As opposed, for example, to 'Carrington chose'.
  • Carrington took a lot of heat for the retreat as it was seen as an overreaction, so the latter option that you suggest is more accurate
  • Optional: "When it became apparent that their relief had been turned back, the Boer commander, de la Rey, seeking a way to end the siege before another relief force could be sent, ordered his men to cease fire and sent a messenger to the garrison calling upon them to surrender; the garrison, however, rejected the offer and as a result the attack resumed and was subsequently continued throughout the night." A bit of a long sentence. Maybe replace the semi-colon with a full stop?
  • Done
  • "After the siege had been in place for a week, de la Rey again called upon the garrison to surrender,[6] as he became concerned about being caught there by the relief forces. The message was received by Hore around 9:00 am on the fifth day of the siege" Which?
    • C-Clark says simply "a week", but Wilcox is move specific, so went with "five days" (I assume C-Clark meant "working week". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result, the weight of fire that the Boers brought down on the outpost also decreased before finally it ceased altogether." Possibly insert 'artillery' before "fire"?
  • No, because the Boers also fired small arms at them, so we can't specifically say artillery.
Fair enough. But in that case, could you have a look at "he decided that it was necessary to withdraw his artillery before superior numbers of British troops arrived in the area. As a result, the weight of fire that the Boers brought down on the outpost also decreased before finally it ceased altogether." The "as a result" caused me to think that the rest of the sentence only related to artillery fire, and I suspect that it would do the same for many readers.
In the original source for this statement the sentence about decreasing fire comes after the statement about the 200 man commando being left, so in the original source fire refers to in general and not specific artillery. I've reordered the paragraph as a result. Kges1901 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The loss of animals was also heavy, with only 210 left alive out of 1,750." Earlier you refer to "1,500 horses, mules or cattle" What type of animals made up the balance?
    • I believe this has been addressed by changing it to "between 1,500 and 1,750 horses". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the graves were improved with several slate headstones and white rocks from nearby to mark the outlines" I am not sure that "from nearby" adds any useful information.
  • Indeed, removed as redundant.
  • Link Australian War Memorial.
  • Done
  • ""...Colonials could have held out in such impossible circumstances"." Pedants' corner, there should be a space between the ellipsis and the start of the quote.
  • Done
  • ""...heroes who in the hour of trial...[had risen]...nobly to the occasion"" Similar, see MOS:ELLIPSIS. And in the following sentence.
  • Done
  • Optional: "who subsequently managed to escape through the Magaliesberg" Consider adding 'mountains to the end.
  • Done
  • "This ultimately prolonged the war which would continue for almost another two years." A comma after "war"?
  • Done
  • "Over a year after the siege at Brakfontein Drift … " I find this very confusing. I assume this is synonymous with the siege at Elands River? If so, why have you changed the usage?
  • Removed as redundant, it is pretty clear what siege is being talked about.
That's it from me. A pleasure to go through this article again. Just as solid as I remember it.
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: thanks for taking a look at this again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert and Kges1901: Thanks for the adjustments. Two points above I would be grateful if you could look at: de la Rey's leadership in the lead; and me being picky over the decreasing [artillery] fire. Plus a comment below just for consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Optional: "While the ground to the north, south and west of the supply dump dropped to the river where the Reit Valley opened towards Zeerust, 50 kilometres (31 mi) away, the ground to the east of the farm rose towards a high point which came to be known as Cossack Post Hill and which was used by the garrison defending the post to send messages to Rustenburg – 70 kilometres (43 mi) away – using a heliograph" Long sentence alert.

A magnificent article. More than happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time with this, Gog. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz edit

Hi, just a few comments and suggestions...

  • Australian colonies - refine link to #Establishment of British colonies
  • Done
  • dishonoured their parole after having surrendered - refine wlink to #Prisoners of war
  • Done
  • way point - wlink
  • Done
  • irregulars - wlink
  • Done
  • were being evacuated from the area, and had moved to the farm prior to being withdrawn from the area - 2 x "from the area", one can go
  • Done
  • After surrounding the garrison during the night while they were occupied entertaining themselves singing around their campfires,[4] the Boers' attack began early on 4 August after the garrison had been stood down for breakfast. - will be confusing to some readers ie who is doing what? ie "they were occupied" maybe 'the defenders were occupied' or start sentence 'The Boers surrounded...' then 'and began their attck early on 4 August...'
  • Done
  • conversions is it okay to have mixed orders of? eg 70 kilometres (43 mi) / 8 miles (13 km) and 3,000 yards (2,700 m) / 800 metres (870 yd)
  • Done
  • If (I'm only guessing, can't find it in MOS) they should be consistent metric > imp, then these 4 need flipping "He halted just 8 miles (13 km)" / "about 2,000 yards (1,800 m) away" / "about 4,300 yards (3,900 m) away" / "sallied over 200 yards (180 m) to".
  • "1,500 horses, mules or cattle" v "1,500 horses, mules and cattle" - suggest 'and' for consistency
  • Done
  • at which point Turnbridge - Tunbridge
  • Done
  • told him him that the Australians - 2 x him
  • Done
  • never surrender!"[23][21] - ref order
  • Problem appears to have been fixed.
  • citing previous instructions and warnings from Roberts - Roberts has not been introduced, his wlink is further down
  • Done
  • should mention his role, eg Commander-in-Chief of British Forces?
  • The loss of animals was also heavy, with only 210 left alive out of 1,750. - 1,500 mentioned twice before
  • This is a result of using two different sources with differing loss figures.
  • Tweaked the wording a little to hopefully clarify that there are slightly different figures in the sources. Does this work: [2]? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloemfontein - wlink?
  • Done
  • Done, also linked within the quote box.
  • Horner, David - authorlink
  • Done
  • Jeal, Tim - authorlink
  • Done
  • Pakenham, Thomas (historian) - authorlink
  • Done
  • Wilcox book title 1899–1901 - is that year span correct? not 1902?

That's it from me. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz: thanks for taking a look at this, Jenny. You have a fantastic eye for detail. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Kges1901 and AustralianRupert:, tweaks are spot on. I've added 2 follow up questions above (Roberts and conversions}, JennyOz (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JennyOz: thanks, Jenny, I believe Kges has addressed these now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both @AustralianRupert and Kges1901: for this fine article which I am happy to support. (I have only recently come to know that a relative was KIA in the Second Boer War. His date of death doesn't match any of the battle articles though. I am keen to read any future articles so would be happy for you to ping me, if you remember, if I miss any nominations.) Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Jenny, will do. I hope you can discover more about your relative. If you haven't done so already, you might be able to find their service record through the National Archives, which might help a little. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Elands_River_(1900)&oldid=873636975"