Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/South Australian Mounted Rifles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

South Australian Mounted Rifles[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

South Australian Mounted Rifles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article marks a return to ANZSP for the first time since the NZ Div Cav article after I found that coverage of the Second Boer War was surprisingly incomplete. It is about the first and second contingents from South Australia in the Second Boer War, and passed a GA several weeks ago. Kges1901 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford[edit]

This is a very nice article in pristine condition. For a regiment the length seems short, however, it existed for less than two years so probably represents as whole of a treatment as possible. I had one minor comment:

  • Per MOS:SPELL09 I believe numbered 6 officers and 121 men should be "numbered six officers and 121 men" (in the body, I wouldn't think this would apply to the infobox due to space considerations).

Chetsford (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually not. Consistency is more important than the spelling out rule.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Checking this version of the article:

  • Ref 1 (Bou): Checks out
  • Ref 14 (Plowman): Checks out
  • The link to Murray, P.L. doesn't work
  • The Google Books link to Stirling doesn't seem useful as it doesn't show a preview of the book's text
  • All the sources meet WP:RS. Allara Publishing appears to have been a very minor press [1], but I'm sure that I've seen this work used as a reference in professionally published works. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

  • Having one sentence under the history section is very jarring. Is there anything to be added regarding its prewar service; commander, base, units for the four year period between 1895 and 1899? Also I'm not sure if the infobox should use the word "initial" in case readers interpret it as being that size prior to 1899.
  • The problem with this is that the SAMR that is referring to is a militia unit that had no organizational link to the unit that fought in South Africa. The militia SAMR continued to exist until 1903, distinct from the unit that fought in South Africa. Kges1901 (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as the 1st contingent was raised as an infantry unit rather than mounted, it may pay to stress in history section that the SAMR was mounted.
  • Do you recommend a specific place to mention it?
  • Having thought about this some more, it seems that it is more a matter of explicitly clarifying that the unit was redesignated/repurposed to mounted infantry and this included a name change. You kind of say this is occurring in the 2nd paragraph of the 1st Contingent: "...where it received horses and became a mounted rifle squadron." I think that, assuming that this is when it happened, modifying the sentence to include an explicit statement at this point around having its name officially changed from the original South Australian Infantry Company will do the trick. Zawed (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the abbreviation for "The 1st South Australian Mounted Rifles" after first mention.
  • Done.
  • "a mainly SAMR mixed volunteer group": "a mainly 1st SAMR mixed volunteer group".
  • Done.
  • "The 2nd SAMR was raised as a mounted infantry squadron along the same lines as the 1st contingent." recite the 2nd in full. Also, I don't quite understand what is meant by "same lines"; the 1st was a company of infantry, the 2nd was a mounted infantry squadron so they are different?
  • Clarified. The similarity is in terms of the personnel they were drawn from.
  • Looks like a missing word here "J Battery Royal Horse Artillery Major Euthoven", maybe commanded by?
  • Rephrased.
  • "At Bloemfontein, the South Australian Mounted Rifles" suggest clarifying that the two contingents were now unified; i.e. "At Bloemfontein, the unified SAMR..."
  • Done.
  • In the casualties section, shouldn't the POW (the 2nd para of the 2nd contingent section) be mentioned? Also, should the ranks of the DSO recipients be mentioned and is "Humphris" spelt correctly? I'm wondering if it should be Humphries.

That's my review done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Humphris is the spelling used in the newspapers as well. Kges1901 (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC) - @Zawed: Do you have any further feedback on my responses to your comments? Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No rank information for the DSO recipients? Zawed (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kges1901: sorry, I totally overlooked that I had to respond to you on this. Further comments added above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:AWM_P00220_South_Australian_Mounted_Rifles_1900.jpg: per the template in use, this needs details on first publication
  • Added date.
  • For the SLSA images tagged CC0, is the library asserting that it has the right to release these photos? Or is this just used to indicate that the images are PD for another reason?
  • Those are identified as CC-Public Domain-Mark 1.0. What is the appropriate template for that?
  • If that is the correct licensing, then the current template is appropriate - what I'm wondering is whether that is in fact the correct licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is, in fact, what the library seems to be asserting, that there is no copyright. The website links to a page on their copyright policies. Kges1901 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:AWM_P03797.002_2nd_SAMR_Trooper_George_Lawrence_Hardy_grave.jpg: where does that CC tag come from? It doesn't match what's at the source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • AWM says it is PD under CC-Public Domain-Mark 1.0. What is the appropriate template for that? Kges1901 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: On second thought, I may not have understood this. Per PD-Australia images taken pre-1955 are in public domain even if the author is known. In that case, all of these are PD and the library with its license is asserting PD for age reasons. This would only apply to the SLSA file 1st contingent South Australian Mounted Rifles 1899 group portrait.jpg. The image taken at Rensburg of Howland seems to have been part of his personal collection, which was apparently donated to the library, thus they would hold the rights.[2]

Kges1901 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at with the SLSA comment above - it's not a matter of them releasing the rights, but rather than the copyright has expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Please emphasize that there was no connection between this unit of volunteers and the militia unit and keep the material on militia unit to a minimum
  • Attempted, see if it is clear enough now.
  • Link ranks,
  • Done
  • along with the other companies of the regiment. What other companies? I thought that it only had the two?
  • Done
  • Give Breaker Morant's first name.
  • Done
  • from the same group of personnel as the 1st contingent. Do you mean the same types of men?
  • Done
  • 500 Imperial Mounted Infantry is this a unit or just a non-formed group of soldiers?
  • Used unit name instead.
  • Lieutenants George Lynch and Rowell were handed the keys to the fort, over which the Union Jack was raised; they captured 85 prisoners that day. Was there fighting on this day? I'd think it would be hard to capture prisoners who had already surrendered
  • Rephrased
  • After Belmont, the SAMR Do you meant Belfast?
  • Done
  • Confusing usage of it and they when referring to the regiment--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to rephrase that paragraph, see if it is clearer now.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/South_Australian_Mounted_Rifles&oldid=861278645"