Talk:Shangani Patrol/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 22:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I'm making a few minor copyedits as I go along. Please feel free to revert or discuss anything you don't like.

Okay.

Prelude, "Forbes interrogated a captive Matabele," Where did he get a captive Matabele?

They regularly picked up stragglers. The source doesn't say precisely, but I presume he was one of them. I've added ", as well as stragglers" to the sentence about regularly finding Matabele camps.

Forbes' retreat, "Dawson was the first non-Matabele to learn of the last stand." Didn't Forbes patrol know that they had made a last stand?

Forbes didn't know what had happened north of the river, because the only survivors of the patrol were Burnham, Ingram and Gooding, all of whom had left before the last stand. And, of course, all who remained there were dead.

Ah, I guess I wasn't getting the implied difference between Forbes' presuming that they were all dead vs. Dawson knowing they were. All good. Dana boomer (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact, link Mashonaland?

Okay.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
~~File:Lobengula-image.jpg has a review needed tag~~

~~For the two photographs in the Men of the Shangani Patrol section, why is it necessary to say the photos are undated?~~

File:Shangani-memorial-panel-rho.jpg - First, this image has several redundant license tags. Second, they all claim life of author + 70 years, yet we aren't given any information on when the author died.

Have reviewed Lobengula pic, it looks okay to me. On the next two, I guess it isn't necessary to say they're undated photos. On the last one, I've added a "PD-Zimbabwe" tag, as this is an old Rhodesian postcard. The "Henry Irving, Horley" who took the photograph is not identified further, and we don't know when he died. However, this is a postcard, and I'm not sure what the rules surrounding this are. What do you think? —Cliftonian (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure if that's the right tag, because we know the author, but not the death date, and that template says if the author is known, it's life+70, which gets us right back where we started. Do we know the original release/publication date of the postcard? In any scenario, I've asked User:Nikkimaria to take a look - she does image reviews at FAC, so I'm hoping she, or one of her TPSs, will be able to help us. Dana boomer (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for that. The image was originally uploaded in 2005 by Humansdorpie, who no longer appears to be active on Wikipedia, having left back in 2006. He describes it as an "original black and white postcard", which would point to its being late 19th century, but I know this is somewhat tenuous. Looking for "Henry Irving, Horley", this appears to refer to a photographer named Henry Irving from Horley, Surrey, England, who appears to have been quite prolific in his time, focussing mostly on plants and so on: I have found references to him here (in 1900), here (in 1904), here (running up to 1915), here (apparently running up to "c.1930s"). I can't find anything further than that. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found that stuff on the author too, and if he died in the 1930s, then we're good. However, I didn't find anything that stated that specifically (he just seemed to go inactive around then). Per Nikki:

"Hey Dana. My understanding is that when the date of death of the author is unknown and cannot be determined through due diligence, the work is considered to be PD 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation in the US - not sure if that applies to foreign works. I also know that some non-US governments consider works where the author's date of death is unknown to be pseudonymous, though I don't know if Zimbabwe is one of those countries. Do we know in what year this postcard was first published? It might qualify under the US pre-1923 rule, or the pre-1978-with-no-copyright rule. Either way, unless it can be demonstrated to be PD in Zimbabwe, someone should probably re-upload it here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)"

So, basically, if I'm reading this right, we need either the publication date or the author's death date to make this image stick. Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Well, I strongly suspect if we were able to get the correct information, then this image would be okay, but I simply cannot find a definite answer for either of these questions to back up my hunch. We may have to lose this image, sadly. If you can't find anything else on it, I suggest we get rid of it. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the image with one of two gold sovereigns; I actually think this is a minor improvement. What do you think? —Cliftonian (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if we could find the proper info, the relief pic would most likely be OK. However, I like the new sovereigns image. Dana boomer (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall a very nice article. I have a few, quite minor, prose quibbles. I'm mainly waiting on the resolution of the one image issue before passing the article, so placing this on hold for the moment. Dana boomer (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and the kind words! I hope we can resolve this soon. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the image description has been fixed, everything looks good to go. Very nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another very pleasant review, Dana! —Cliftonian (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]