Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhodesian mission in Lisbon/archive2

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 Ian Rose 03:59, 25 November 2012 [1].

Lisbon Appointment

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article about a three-way diplomatic dispute between Britain, Rhodesia and Portugal during the 1960s' "scramble out of Africa" has already undergone a peer review, an FAC nomination and a review at the Military History project. The first two were fairly unproductive but the third has yielded much progress. I feel the article is now ready and look forward to hearing your thoughts. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I posted a detailed review during this article's recent A-class nomination, and believe that it also meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the excellent review, Nick. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was about to support at the 1st FAC when it came off. I haven't reread it but I'm sure it's even better now - I've read the very thorough milhist review. Highly detailed & well-written. I made a couple of minor edits last time. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the kind words and the support, John. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is a very important part of Rhodesian history - throwing light on the crucial period just before UDI. Cliftonian's write-up is well-researched, dealing with several different aspects of the study, and is well composed and presented. --DLMcN (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very kind words and the support, Dave. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having examined the article in question, I will state with confidence that it's a commendable piece of work - extraordinarily written and properly researched. Needless to say, no objections. --Katangais (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind words, Katangais. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

"Portugal (red and burgundy), Rhodesia (green) and South Africa (orange)", "

European Free Trade Association (green)" - see WP:COLOUR

Okay, I'll find a solution for this later —Cliftonian (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've annotated the first of these with letters, and removed the second one. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat_of_arms_of_Rhodesia.svg: on what source was this image based?

I didn't make this image, but I am very familiar with the coat of arms and have a lot of Rhodesiana in my possession, including a large Rhodesian flag, which prominently includes the coat of arms in full. Judging from all of this, the coat of arms depicted here is accurate. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:First_government_of_rhodesia.jpg is sourced to Wikipedia. When/where was this image first published?

I don't know, but it seems to be an official formative shot, which I would think would have been first published in 1924 in Rhodesia. It therefore comes under modern Zimbabwean law, which defines photographs older than 50 years as public domain. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Federation_rhodesia_nyasaland.png, File:Rhodesia,_South_Africa_and_Portugal,_1964.png: what sources were used to create these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the first one, but I am very familiar with the geography, and can confirm it is accurate. The second I did make; I based it on the image File:Portuguese colonial war map1.PNG (which is unsourced), changed some borders to match the correct ones for the 1960s (based on information elsewhere on Wikipedia), and coloured in Rhodesia and South Africa. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Lisbon_Appointment#Britain attempts to block the appointment. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- I note Dank's prose review/copyedit up until where he left off, so have stepped through the rest myself; I think there are a few bits that could be reworded:

Hughes blustered -- doesn't sound exactly neutral, perhaps some other term?

I was meaning to get over his desperation, but maybe you're right. I've changed it to "insisted". —Cliftonian (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool -- it's no easy task to make prose both lively and objective; overall, however, I think the article manages to tread that fine line. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britain tries to browbeat Portugal -- something like Britain mobilises NATO support against Portugal might be more precise, with or without but Lisbon insists it is neutral at the end.

Okay, have changed to "Britain mobilises NATO support against Portugal; Lisbon insists it is neutral". —Cliftonian (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britain protested furiously -- "Furiously" in a diplomatic context sounds almost like hysteria, "strongly" or even "strenuously" might be preferable.

I like "strenuously", thanks —Cliftonian (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"assertively" predicting seems superfluous. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the review Ian. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:20, 24 November 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.