Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugh Beadle/archive1


 * 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 via FACBot (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2015.

Hugh Beadle

 * Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian   (talk)  06:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sir Hugh Beadle, PC, CMG, OBE, Chief Justice of Rhodesia at the time of UDI in 1965, is today chiefly remembered for making the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson quite angry. Beadle was very much an Establishment figure, thought the Rhodesian Front government under Ian Smith a motley collection of amateurs and, according to one biographer, would be "remembered as a Commonwealth chief justice who upheld individual liberty" had there been no UDI. Perhaps unfortunately, Beadle's life is now defined by UDI and his reactions to it. He initially stood by the British Governor Sir Humphrey Gibbs and continued his efforts started before UDI to find a compromise. The failure of the 1966 Wilson–Smith Tiger conference seems to have affected Beadle deeply and by 1968 we find him first ruling Smith's post-UDI order to be the de facto authority in Rhodesia, then declaring it fully de jure. How to explain such a volte-face? Was Beadle an "evil genius" who furtively supported UDI all along, or one who "did his best for his country in a time of difficult choices"? We will probably never know for sure.

This article passed a GA review in January and has just undergone a very productive peer review. I think it comes at least close to FA standard. I hope you enjoy reading it; all comments welcome. Cheers, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  06:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. As the GA reviewer I was already family familiar with this article. After a thorough read I am satisfied it now meets FA standards, though I have a couple suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think beyond the pale should be linked as per WP:IDIOM. Maybe it needs no explanation in other parts of the world, but like I said in the GA review I had to google it
 * OK, I've removed it. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "After Leonie's death in 1953" - Since you gave the cause of death for his second wife i'm guessing you couldn't find any information on Leonie's cause of death? If that's the case it's certainly understandable, otherwise more information on the matter would be nice.
 * Can't find it in the sources. Will add if I do.

Thank you for the helpful comments, here and at the GA stage, Freikorp, and for your support here. Very much appreciated. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I was one of the peer reviewers. I found the article to be well-written and comprehensive. After reviewing again, I see many improvements have subsequently been made. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help along the way and your support, FunkyCanute. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – I reviewed this article at PR and was impressed (not to say abashed) at how much I learned about what was headline news when I was a fourth-former. This judicious and well balanced article meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I have no hesitation in supporting its promotion to FA.  Tim riley  talk    19:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support, the extremely kind words and the help at PR, Tim. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and found it informative. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  05:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent and fascinating read, meets the criteria as far as I can see. – SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the extremely kind words and the support, SchroCat. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  05:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: Nicely balanced, well written and very complete. I don't think that all of the small prose changes suggested in the long review, above below, are improvements, although some are. Personally I think that "dissociate" is a better verb than "distance", in the context given; it is stronger, and closer I believe to what Wilson and Co. wished. And I don't much like the mdash introduced into the sentence "This proved decisive for Beadle—to the surprise of many, the Conservatives won, and Edward Heath replaced Wilson as Prime Minister." In any event, the opening "This" needs clarifying. I suggest: "This decision proved decisive for Beadle as, to the surprise of many, the Conservatives won the election, and Edward Heath replaced Wilson as Prime Minister." I will leave it entirely up to you whether you implement these. A great contribution to the encyclopædia. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support, the extremely kind words and for all your help along the way Brian. I have gone back to "dissociate", which I agree after looking at the new version for a few days is better. I have also adopted your suggestion on the "decisive" sentence. Thanks and I hope you are well. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Hugh_Beadle_1965.jpg: should use non-free biog-pic instead
 * Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. This one I've fixed, cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Federation_rhodesia_nyasaland.png: what is the source of the data reflected in this map?
 * Don't know what the original author used, but I've added a source that confirms it (map on inside cover of Richard Wood's history of the Federation).


 * File:Dodwilson.JPG: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bugger, so it is. Not sure what to do about this one. It was uploaded to Commons in 2007 with only the url for the image itself, so the Wayback machine isn't finding it. All Tineye's showing me is the same image on other Wikimedia sites. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * what course of action do you propose here? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  10:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest using this. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —  Cliftonian   (talk)  13:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I think Singora's final comments  completely sum  up this contributor's character – boorish, attention-seeking, obscene, juvenile. And of course cowardly – how brave to shout his playground insults from behind his anonymous username. Fortunately, no one will take this arrogant little boy at all seriously. Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very sad to see that sort of nastiness infecting this page. People of goodwill must just rise above it.  Tim riley  talk    20:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing surprises me from this creature.  Cassianto Talk   21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Singora's account for one month. This must be the most deplorable personal attack I have seen on Wikipedia. Clearly, Singora's comments will not be taken into account by the FAC coordinators. Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed they won't. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, co-ordinators. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Support -- A wonderful article which I have enjoyed reading immensely over the last couple of hours. Nice work Cliftonian!  Cassianto Talk   20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Cassianto! I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  05:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources review


 * Probably best to go with consistency on linking the publishers in the bibliography: you have some not others.
 * OK, lost the links —  Cliftonian   (talk)  09:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I presume that Annual Report of the Under Secretary to the Federal Ministry of Works doesn't appear in Worldcat with an OCLC? No probs is you've already looked and found nothing.
 * Found it —  Cliftonian   (talk)  09:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * the only other point I messed before is the date range in the IB: as far as I'm aware, his 'in office' datespan should be 1961–77.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  09:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That's it from me: all good otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks SchroCat. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  09:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.