Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Kruger/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) 05:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC).

Paul Kruger

 * Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian   (talk)  12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Uncle Paul" Kruger never read any book apart from the Bible and thought the Earth was flat, but nevertheless rose to be the four-time president of a republic that defied the British Empire. He encapsulated in his person the 19th-century history of the Boer people, from the Great Trek he took part in as a boy to the Second Boer War that ended his country's independence and sent him into exile. Personifying the Boers as he did, opinions on him correspond closely with opinions on the Boers in general. In some accounts he is a tragic folk hero who gave his all to defend his people, while in others he was an oppressive despot who ultimately brought disaster on himself and his country. The truth is in my view somewhere between these two extremes, though you will do well to find a book telling you that. Emotions run high to this day and even literature published recently often has an agenda.

This recently passed GA and then underwent a peer review from five editors, including the GA reviewer Timothy Riley Esq. In my nomination statement at PR I highlighted the article's length—just under 14,600 words, as of 16 March—and requested input on whether cuts should be made and if so, where. Consensus from the peer reviewers seemed to be that despite its high word count the article was engaging, tightly-written and well-organised, with "no need to soldier through it". I therefore have not attempted any major pruning. I think the article is at least close to FA standards and look forward to your feedback. Cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – The suggestion that the article might be too long was my fault, and I wholly withdraw and repudiate it. It struck me at GAN that the word-count might attract flak at FAC, but when I actually came to give the article a close reading against FA standards at the peer review stage I found the length was not a problem at all. There is no padding, no digression and the narrative canters along briskly. In writing about this controversial figure Cliftonian has consistently maintained an impeccable neutrality – a tightrope walk that can't have been easy. The peer review was thorough and beneficial, and on a third reading the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. –  Tim riley  talk    15:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Tim for all your help, your kind words and your support. I hope you're having a great week. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Support, per Tim Riley. My comments, minor at that, have been dealt with in the Peer Review. While a bit long, I really feel that this article embodies more of what we need on Wikipedia - good articles on important subjects. The fact that it is falls within the under-covered scope of African history is, in my view, even better. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Brigade Piron for the support and the extremely kind words. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this Crisco. I hope you don't mind me capping the image review above. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  01:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was thinking of doing the same thing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * ... "but they must not touch my independence," he said. "They must be reasonable in their demands.": If the comma isn't in the quote, move it outside the quote marks per WP:LQ. This is probably an issue throughout; search for ,"
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "he was one of the most famous people in the world": the tone is not encyclopedic.
 * The source wording is almost identical: "Kruger was already one of the most famous men in the world". —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He wasn't writing an encyclopedia. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, let's lose it. We've already said he was a household name and "The outbreak of war raised Kruger's international profile even further." So we probably don't need it. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * " thereafter, after": This jangles.
 * Redrawn —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this Dan. I hope my replies and tweaks are to your liking. Hope you're well and having a pleasant week. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lekker, cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Support: I originally participated in this article's peer review and have taken another look see to make sure everything looks to be in order (it is). The referencing and footnotes are good, there is sufficient visual aid, and the text is adequately engaging. I was aware of prior comments made regarding the article's length and language but have found no grounds to question either in the current revision. As a biographical article - especially one correlating to WikiProject South Africa - it's an exemplary work. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Baie dankie Katangais for the very kind words and the support. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A Happy St Patrick's Day to everybody watching this page. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources review
 * The ODNB entry (Davenport) should not be listed under "Newspaper and journal articles". ODNB is neither a newspaper nor a journal. The article is actually from the online edition of ODNB – not the same as the print edition. It should appear under "Online sources", and should be marked "online edition".
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Similarly, Reuters is not a newspaper or journal. If and where this article appeared in print is indeterminable. It should be treated as an online source and listed accordingly.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The 13-digit ISBNs should be in a standard format – at the moment, some have hyphens and some don't. Also, I understand there is a formula for converting 10-digit ISNBs to 13; I don't know what it is, but SchroCat certainly does.
 * This works — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Crisco 1492. I think this is consistent now? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kaplan should precede Knight in the bibliography
 * In the citations, I noticed quite a few duplicated or overlapping page ranges: see, for example, the Meintjes refs 134 to 139. There may be a reason for this, otherwise it might be tidier to combine some of these.
 * I've tried to tidy this up a bit. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Apart from these small concerns,  sources look good,  of appropriate quality and properly formatted. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this Brian. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: A deeply impressive biography of a deeply unprepossessing man. I was involved at the peer review stage and made my points there – I have nothing significant to add here. If it were my choice I might cut a few of the more marginal images, e.g. Bismarck, the Colonial Office Building – but that's a matter for you. Excellent work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Brian for all your help and the extremely kind words. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – I cannot find the ref. Picton-Seymour 1989, p. 164 in the bibliography. P. S. Burton  (talk)  19:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch Mr Burton! Have fixed this. Thank you also for your tidying and copy-editing. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  06:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Coord note -- this review has been well patronised and had the necessary checks but given it's been around less than two weeks I might leave it open till the weekend in case there are any late-comers... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.