Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/P. K. van der Byl

P. K. van der Byl

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Brianboulton (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. van der Byl (1923–1999) was a South African-born Rhodesian politician who served as the country's Foreign Minister from 1974 to 1979 as a member of the Rhodesian Front. A close associate of Prime Minister Ian Smith, van der Byl opposed all attempts to compromise with the British government and domestic black nationalist opposition on the issue of majority rule until the late 1970s. In the early 1960s, he became a government minister responsible for propaganda. One of the leading agitators for Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965, van der Byl was afterwards responsible for introducing press censorship. He was unsuccessful in his attempt to gain international recognition for the nation of Rhodesia. In 1974 he was made Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defence at a time when Rhodesia's only remaining ally, South Africa, was supplying military aid. His extreme views and brusque manner made him a surprising choice for a diplomat, and after offending the South African government, van der Byl was removed from the Defence Ministry. He served in the short-lived government of Zimbabwe Rhodesia in 1979, following the Internal Settlement. After the country's reconstitution as Zimbabwe in 1980, van der Byl remained in politics. He retired to South Africa after the Mugabe government abolished the parliament seats reserved for whites in 1987. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): James McCay (December 21)
Main editors: Expatkiwi
Promoted: July 23, 2006
Reasons for nomination: Read it, and it is a really well-written and interesting article. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please add this nomination to the summary table. Brianboulton (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the text above as a summary of the lead section in a little over 1200 characters. Was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I thank you as always. Looks fine.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional oppose. Given how low the FA standards were in 2006, it's a great credit to the authors that this article is in such good shape, but as it stands it would fail a FAR were it taken there today—not just statements but entire paragraphs are completely uncited. If this issue is addressed, delegates feel free to strike this. – iridescent 16:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Iridescent. The article cannot be TFA in its present state. Did the nominator consult the main editors, and are they prepared to do the considerable work necessary to bring it up to scratch? Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont agree with you on the article standard. But sure if you feel like that, I could definitely pull this withdraw the nom. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've pinged Cliftonian, ~~who co-nommed this at FAC~~. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I did not co-nom this at FAC and I do not think I could be described as one of the main editors—the featured candidacy was over two years before I joined the project. I have edited this article very intermittently over the past few years because it is in one of my main focus areas and far below the standards we have come to expect from featured articles, but the vast majority of the material here is not mine. I have removed myself from the list of "main editors" above (I'm also a bit bemused that Expatkiwi has been described as such as according to this he's only edited the article three times). In my view the article is below FA standards as things stand and if anything should be pointed towards FAR, not TFA, at this time. The referencing in particular needs a lot of work. Cheers. — Cliftonian (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose BabbaQ, your view that this is an acceptable FA by today's standards is way off, hence my pile-on oppose even after you've withdrawn this (but before the nomination is officially closed). This article is correctly listed with a big red cross at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page#2006 (you might want to check there first before nominating older articles in future - very often there are good reasons why old articles have not been run). As others have said, lack of decent referencing is a real problem - uncited passages, inadequate reference formatting (by modern standards), the use of sources that look less than fully reliable (an old geocites.com site, for instance). Needs clean-up or FAR, not TFA. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer assuming this is not selected, don't forget to update WP:TFANO. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one can be closed now I believe. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]