Wikipedia:Peer review/Rhodesian mission in Lisbon/archive1

Lisbon Appointment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've spent the last month or so writing this article in my userspace, and now I'm bringing it here as a precursor to ultimately taking it to FAC. It's a prose-heavy diplomatic piece on the rather controversial subject of Rhodesia, with a little bit of Perfidious Albion and the Portuguese Estado Novo thrown in, but I think I have managed to remain neutral. Any input is welcome, but comments I would find particularly useful would pertain to perceived bias. I am fairly confident in the prose, but commentary on this would always be helpful. In any case, if you choose to have a look, I hope you find this interesting. Please review this as if it were at FAC. Thanks and all the best, —Cliftonian (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. A few suggestions:

"propelled it towards Portugal, which, through its overseas territories in Angola and Mozambique, was a neighbour.": propelled it to reach out to Portugal, which governed Angola and Mozambique, two territories west of Rhodesia.

Mozambique's to the east, but I've implemented your suggestion while adapting it appropriately ("... governed Angola and Mozambique, territories respectively west and east of Rhodesia"). —Cliftonian (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretoria, South Africa": Pretoria, South Africa,

Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"directly-administrated": no hyphen per WP:HYPHEN. That back-formation from administration is more common in BritEng than AmEng; would "administered" work for you?

I think administered actually sounds better, okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"intended to cater for previously unqualified black voters": I'm not sure. Maybe: intended to enfranchise previously disqualified black voters.

Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made two tweaks, otherwise great. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got down a little farther than Lisbon_Appointment#Federal dissolution; Salisbury pushes for independence. Everything looks good so far. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for all: I am being called up by the army early tomorrow morning (26 August), so I will not be able to see any further comments for a while. Please bear this in mind if you leave comments for me in this peer review. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]