Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anglo-Zanzibar War

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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008 [1].

Anglo-Zanzibar War[edit]

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

This article has recently been granted A-class status by WP:MILHIST and I feel that it meets all of the requirements for FA status - Dumelow (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments - This looks like an article that could be upto FA standards, but there are a few Prose issues that need dealing with:
Sorry about that, I realise my prose writing is quite poor. I'll try to sort these out - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'The British government preferred a more pro-British candidate for Sultan: Hamud bin Muhammed' - Rewording this to remove the colon seems like a better idea, less awkward this way.
Done - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'In accordance with a treaty signed in 1886, a condition for accession to the sultancy was that the candidate obtain the permission of the British Consul and Khalid had not fulfilled this requirement.' - Needs a comma after 'Consul'
Done - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'The British considered this a casus belli ' - I know what cassus belli means, perhaps keeping the wikilink but rephrasing it to a more well-known phrase might be a better idea for other readers
'Hostilities opened with the expiry of the ultimatum at 9:00 am EAT on 27 August, when the British attacked the palace' - This needs rewording as well, seems a bit strange. Also, the following sentence introduces 'The force' rather abruptly without stating why it was present or how it got there.
I have made quite large changes to this section which should solve both of the above - Dumelow (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Around 2800 Zanzibaris defended the palace; most recruited from the civilian population, but they also included the Sultan's palace guard and several hundred of his servants and slaves.' - 'Most were recruited' sounds better
Done - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'A brisk bombardment of the palace and defending artillery was opened at 9:02 am and soon the palace was on fire and the artillery had been disabled' - Sorry to sound like a broken record, but this doesn't sound quite right - lack of punctuation as well. In fact, checking punctuation throughout the article sounds like a good idea. 'Brisk' also needs replacing, a bit odd to me.
Done, I'll check the rest for punctuation - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'The war marked the end of Zanzibar as a sovereign state and the start of a period of heavy British influence.' - Don't think 'heavy' is quite the right word there.

Well, that's just the lead. It's a good article, just needs some polishing in terms of prose. Skinny87 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Image:Zanzibar_palace_after_low.JPG doesn't seem all that necessary as a fair use image considering the image in the infobox at the top of the page. But then again I'm no expert on photos, so I might be wrong. Skinny87 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the image was useful to the reader as it was the only one that I could find which showed how the entire palace complex fared (with the palace and harem almost destroyed whilst the House of Wonders remained almost intact} whilst the image at the top just showed the harem. The painting is obviously just an artistic impression of this but I haven't seen any photographs of the scene. My understanding of the image guidelines is far from complete though so I will, of course, defer to anyone with a better knowledge of them - Dumelow (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. I'll look at the rest of the article today and make some more comments. Skinny87 (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, so I don't clog this nom up with lots of sentence that can easily be fixed, I'll give the article a copy-edit and just highlight anything specific. Skinny87 (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comments:
'The British were particularly interested in prohibiting slavery, and their desire to do so in Zanzibar is sometimes cited as a driving force behind the treaty with Germany' - Needs to be cited, then please.
I agree, don't know how I missed that. I'll take a look through my sources and cite or remove it as necessary - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced this sentence with one which I have a ref for. I couldn't find any refs for the original one (I am not sure that I added it in the first place) but this one serves much the same purpose. I'll try to sort the other concerns mentioned later (no time now) - Dumelow (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be a bit vague, but the whole 'Origins' section is a bit scattered. Lots of short sentences that don't quite match up or lead into each other. I understand you're trying to trace Anglo-German land swapping and how this caused problems, but it needs to be rewritten to make it flow better - it's really this bit that needs rewording: 'The Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty of 1890 saw Germany cede its rights in Zanzibar to the United Kingdom and pledge not to interfere with British interests there.[12] Earlier, Sultan Khalifah had granted land in East Africa to Britain which later became Kenya and Germany received Tanganyika. This upset some sections of the Arab ruling class, whose wealth was built upon slavery, which had been outlawed in the European-held lands.[8] The British were particularly interested in prohibiting slavery, and their desire to do so in Zanzibar is sometimes cited as a driving force behind the treaty with Germany.'
Yep, I'll take a look over that as well and try to make it flow better - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote this whole section, hopefully should read better (and more chronologically) now - Dumelow (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph on describing the palace seems out of place, disrupting the narrative.
I have now integrated this section with the improved Origins section. Hopefully it fits better in there. I think it is important to keep it in as it describes the rather unusual layout of the palace and its construction (which resulted in the high death count from the bombardment) - Dumelow (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Mathews and Cave also began to muster their forces, already commanding 900 Zanzibari askaris under Brigadier-General Arthur Edward Harington Raikes, a Lieutenant of the Wiltshire Regiment.[19]' - How can he be a Brigadier-General and a Lieutenant?
Raikes was a lieutenant in the British Army when he was seconded to Zanzibar to serve as a Brigadier General in their army. I agree that this needs more clarification and will get onto it - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should now be clearer - Dumelow (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'In return Glasgow was sunk at her moorings, her crew hoisted the British flag as a token of surrender and all were rescued by British sailors in launches.' - How can the ship sink and then hoist a flag?
The ship settled to the bottom but her masts remained out of the water. Again this needs clarifying and I'll look it over - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified this now - Dumelow (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Sultan Hamud was loyal to the British that installed him' - Don't think you need the last three words
OK, a nice easy one! Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 7 (Guiness Book) needs a page number
I do not have access to this book but have requested that the user who added it now adds a page number - Dumelow (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the adder of the cite, and have provided a page Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 12 (Text of the treaty) needs a publisher
Added - Dumelow (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. The article is very close to FA-standard. A couple of points:

  • The flag of the sultanate worries me; the description of the image says it was drawn based on a description. What confidence do you have that it's an accurate reflection of the real flag of the day?
    I cannot be sure but the uploader says it was based on "a drawing and description" which I took to mean a black and white drawing with some text explaining the colours. If it is a problem then the flags for both countries can simply be removed from the infobox - Dumelow (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest removing them. If you can get confirmation from the uploader that the description was sufficiently precise for us to be confident this is the flag, then I think that would work too; it would be best if that comment were then added to the image. Mike Christie (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I have removed the flags from the infobox and posted a comment of the flag's page at commons - Dumelow (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raccoon" is mis-spelt "Racoon" throughout.
    Racoon seems to be the Royal Navy's preferred spelling. Some sources refer to them as HMS Raccoon but Racoon seems more popular (compare 2480 ghits for "HMS Racoon" to 173 for "HMS Raccoon"). - 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough. If both spellings really are legitimate, you might consider using the one that won't surprise readers. Not required for FA, though, so I'm striking this. Mike Christie (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Khalid's men fired on pro-British Askaris": these are Raikes' askaris, I assume; you mention them specifically earlier in the article, so "pro-British" isn't specific enough here. I think you can make this "Raikes' askaris", or perhaps "Raikes' pro-British askaris".
    Fixed, now reads Raikes' askaris - 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to see at least one more map. Ideally a reader who has never heard of Zanzibar and who is innocent of African geography should understand at the end of the article where Zanzibar is in the world, and where the battle was fought on Zanzibar, without having to click through links. At a minimum I'd suggest a map of Zanzibar with the location of Zanzibar Town marked; if that map can also show the coast of Tanzania, and (perhaps via an inset) the location of Tanzania in Africa, that would be even better. (Or Tanganyika, as it was then.)
    I agree, I'll look around for a PD one (The Zanzibar article has a couple which may be suitable) - Dumelow (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of something like the map at this page. If you can't find anything suitable, let me know; I might be able to create one with DMIS. Mike Christie (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, that would be great if you could. Commons doesn't seem to have much and my map drawing skills are terrible. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this and see what you think. I used what I think are the contemporary names for the territories. If there are other locations named in the article that you'd like marked (such as Mombasa) let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great Mike. Yeah perhaps marking Mombasa would be a good idea and maybe Tanga (roughly opposite Pemba), Ketwa (in northern Zanzibar) and Bagamoyo (Opposite Zanzibar), which are also mentioned. This may be too many labels on one map but might be worth a try as the article refers to all of these (rather unknown) places. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've uploaded a new version. Let me know if this works. Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The map looks good. I have added it to the article in the origins sections (where I think it fits best). Feel free to change the position or whatever. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine to me. I shortened the caption a little; and I've switched to support, above. It's a fine article. Mike Christie (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As someone who worked with Dumelow on helping the article satisfy our referencing, MoS and image policies, I believe the article currently meets the FA criteria. I do believe that some areas of prose can be polished up a bit, so I will be copyediting the article soon. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Reverse dash alert: as a prefix (and thus not lexically independent), Anglo should be followed by a hyphen (a rule also applying on Franco, Russo, Sino, Greco, etc.). The article and this nomination should be, erm, relocated. Waltham, The Duke of 09:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, it was originally spelt with a hyphen but it was recommended to be moved as the result of its peer review. I am increasingly baffled by some parts of the MoS but as the other "dashed" wars seem to have a hyphen I have no problems moving it back and will do so now - Dumelow (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for that, it was me. I am also increasingly baffled by dash warriors so I think I will just ignore it now. Woody (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I uploaded it I couldn't find any relevant tags but I have just looked again and think it may be covered here. As it was drawn by a newspaper artist and published in 1896 I think it may become Template:PD-1923 (I originally though this was only for the USA). Any ideas? - Dumelow (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should also add that if it is PD I will upload a larger version of the file - Dumelow (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PD-1923 is only for works published in the US before '23. Otherwise its public domain after 70 years past the author's death (in the United States only, which would mean it would stay on Wikipedia unless its pd in the source country too.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean on the wikicommons public domain information page that I linked when it says that if date of publication is before 1 July 1909 then all works are public domain (in the Published outside the United States section)? Does that mean its OK? It doesn't have a template though. Sorry for my rather poor knowledge of this area - Dumelow (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think I have solved this problem. Template:PD-US-1923-abroad seems to be the required template that I had missed. This means that it stays on wikipedia but can be used fully in articles. I have gone ahead and changed the tag on the image. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellant work - my only question is if the most cited duration of the war was 38 minutes, why does it say it in the lead that it lasted around 40, and 40 in the aftermath. I know that there is some uncertainty here, but shouldn't you use the most cited duration? ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 40 in the aftermath section was my fault, should have read "around 40" to match the lead. I settled at an approximate figure to give the reader a rough idea of the duration whilst directing them to the footnote which has a more in depth discussion of the duration. I didn't want to state that the war lasted exactly 38 minutes due to the conflicting durations between the sources and even between the ships' log books (which give a range between 33 to 43 mins). Though, of course, I will defer to any consensus on this issue - Dumelow (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted, although there may be a delay in bot processing. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 31 October 2008 (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/Anglo-Zanzibar_War&oldid=1142603396"