Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar Revolution/archive2


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 23:50, 18 April 2009.

Zanzibar Revolution

 * Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was previously nominated in February but I delisted it as there were issues brought up with the prose. The article has had a peer review (by User:Brianboulton) and a copy edit (by User:EyeSerene) since then which has (hopefully!) improved the prose. I have waited until now to renominate as I wanted to wait until I had enough free time to rectify any problems that are picked up on. I believe the article is meets all of the Featured Article Criteria and is a good treatment of the subject - Dumelow (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Using WP:REFTOOLS: The ref   is duplicated and appears in the ref section more than once, a ref name name should be used instead.
 * Fix the 1 disambiguation link.
 * External links are up to speed, as checked with the links checker tool.-- T ru  c o   15:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking it out, I have fixed the duplicated ref. I have left in the link to the Shirazi disambiguation page as I think it is relevant in the context.  The link explains that a Shirazi is a person from Shiraz (in Iran) and describes its different meaning in East Africa - Dumelow (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thats fine by me.-- T ru  c o   15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Support: My remaining prose issues have all been resolved satisfactorily. There are possibly some outstanding image questions, which an image review should resolve quite easily, and I see no reason for withholding support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave this a long peer review recently, and was impressed with its thoroughness and the evident depth of research. I want to support, but at present there are too many prose glitches to satisfy criterion 1a. Many of these were not present when I reviewed the article.
 * Many thanks for giving this another check over Brian, it is much appreciated. I will go through your points and try to solve each one, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead: The use of the word "democratic" to describe these elections is perhaps misplaced, given the distorted results they produced. Democratic suggest fair, which clearly these elections were not. I suggest either delete "democratic", or substitute it with "popular".
 * I have replaced it with parliamentary which specifies that they were elections to a governing body - Dumelow (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Revolution section: "The Sultan, Prime Minister Muhammad Shamte Hamadi, and members of the cabinet fled the island on the royal yacht Seyyid Khalifa..." Need to clarify that the Sultan and the prime mnister were not the same person. Suggest: "The Sultan, together with Prime Minister Muhammad Shamte Hamadi and members of the cabinet, fled the island on the royal yacht Seyyid Khalifa..."
 * I have followed your suggestion here - Dumelow (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Same section) – very clumsy: "Karume had been removed from the island for his safety by the branch secretary for the ASP on Pemba, a Ugandan named John Okello." What island had Karume been removed from (and is "removed from", suggesting involuntariness, the right word)? Also, as written is sounds as though Pemba was a Ugandan named John Okello.
 * I have replaced that bit with: "The ASP branch secretary for Pemba, a Ugandan called John Okello, had sent Karume to the mainland to ensure his safety". Let me know if that is any better - Dumelow (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Better, but "a Ugandan called John Okello" sounds a bit amateurish. I'd say: "the Ugandan-born ex-police officer John Okello"
 * You are right, that sounds much better. I have changed it - Dumelow (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Aftermath: "Many Arabs fled to safety in Oman,[] and by Okello's order no Europeans were harmed." "and" is the wrong cojunction since the clauses are not sequential. "Although", perhaps
 * Good point, changed to although - Dumelow (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Same section) – "...the Freedom Military Force (FMF), which patrolled the streets and became involved with looting." Again I'm unhappy with the simple "and". I think a few more words are necessary here, to explain that the FMF was a generally lawless force which participated in looting rather than controlling it.
 * I have changed this slightly, it now reads "and looted Arab property", which hopefully now conveys the right meaning - Dumelow (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Same section) – "In April the government formed the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and completed the disarmament of Okello's remaining FMF militia,  and on 26 April Karume announced that he had negotiated a union with Tanganyika to form the new country of Tanzania." Two "ands" in this sentence. A full stop is required after "FMF militia", the rest being a separate sentence.
 * Thanks, I split it as you suggested - Dumelow (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Foreign reaction: "However, the British High Commissioner in Zanzibar, Timothy Crosthwait, reported no instances of British nationals being attacked and advised against intervention, and by the evening the troops in Kenya had been reduced to four hours' readiness." Another and...and sentence, needs attention.
 * I split this sentence and expanded the second one a bit - Dumelow (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Same section) – "Warsaw Pact countries" rather than just "Warsaw Pact"
 * Done - Dumelow (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Same section) – –"Some members of the Umma Party had received training in Cuba, and wore Cuban military fatigues and beards in the style of Fidel Castro,[] and the new government's recognition of the German Democratic Republic (the first African government to do so) and North Korea was further evidence to the Western Powers that Zanzibar was aligning itself closely with the communist bloc." Yet another sentence with the inappropriate "and" conjunction. I am going to stop pointing these out, but suggest you go through the rest of the article to look for other instances. Basically, "and" connects related or sequential clauses in a sentence. Castro beards and the recognition of the GDR and North Korea are not related or sequential and require separate sentences.
 * OK I have split this sentence and will take a look through for other such "and" sentences, thanks - Dumelow (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the above sentence a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Same section) – last sentence of third paragraph: "Despite this..." - despite what? The words are unnecessary (and yet another benighted "and" sentence)
 * Yep, I have split this up and added some clarification - Dumelow (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Check again: I think you've lost some words in your editing, after "known". It doesn't make sense at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh! Yep I dropped "to be receiving advisers from", I have readded it.  Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Images: Three NFU images is probably excessive. An image reviewer needs to look at this. The caption in the 40th anniversary picture needs to clarify that this "President Karume" is the son of the first president. In the image description of the HMS Centaur pic it would help if you gave the page number of the magazine from which it is uploaded.
 * I am not great with images, there are probably too many fair-use pictures here. I am considering getting rid of the one of Karume or Okello's men (I think it is importance to have the mass grave picture) do you have any ideas which one (or both?) should go?  I have clarified the parade caption.  I did not upload the Centaur image so I do not know where it came from.  Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Jappalang is better able to advise you than I am, on the issue of non-free images. I would agree with you that the mass grave is the best to keep if you are restricted to one, and I'd keep the mercenaries photo above the Karume one – it gives a fairly graphic picture of revolution on the streets. But wait for Jappalang. To find the Centaur image, use the link on the image description page. This takes you to a Back Issues link. Follow that until you find the June 1955 magazine issue, then scroll through until you find the Centaur pic. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the page number to the description page and will wait for further advice on the images - Dumelow (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

These are relatively minor matters which if attended to will make the article a worthy FA, and I will be pleased to add my support at that stage. Brianboulton (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * oppose the article has three non-free image none of which are allowed under WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per above discussion, can you help by indicating which of the conditions for use of non-free images are not being met in the case of Image:Zanzibar grave.jpg? I believe the nominator is willing to remove the other two. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Excellent, even inspired prose. I did not encounter a single copyedit worth mentioning - a rare occurence indeed.
 * Many thanks, I'll go through your points and try to solve them - Dumelow (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A comment on the current political status of the country, while arguably outside of the scope of the article, would add further depth.
 * RFA Hebe .1972.jpg requires better attribution. I don't contest it's use, but using the appropriate templates is a good idea.
 * I have added the standard summary template and summarised the creator/uploader's relevant text - Dumelow (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I will not claim to be an expert, I have fairly extensive experience with free and non-free images and their appropriate uses over at the Graphics Lab. "Karume and chinese.jpg" meets fair use criteria, similarly "Zanzibar revolution troops.jpg" and "Zanzibar grave.jpg"
 * These images are low resolution, irreplaceable and their source is clearly stated. Additional comments on the image pages regarding their contents and significance would be valuable.
 * That is a good idea. I will try to sort something out later this evening (bit busy at the moment) - Dumelow (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the purpose and descriptions of the images. Let me know if there is still some improvements to be made, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust that an attempt has been made to contact Barghash at to ascertain the original source(s) of the images and ensure fair attribution to the relevant authors.
 * A very good point, I should have tried that before (this article has been on a back burner for a while). I will fire off an email to him now and try to sort that out - Dumelow (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no formal limit on the number of non-free images in an article. My POV: Non-specific, over-zealous wikilawyering does the encyclopedia no favours.
 * User:Fasach Nua, the author of the above oppose links to User:Angr on his talk page, which opposes the use of any non-free images in a free content encyclopedia. I believe that this clarifies his POV. Further, Fasach Nua has been warned for disruptive editing no fewer than 11 times and 16 posts have been made on his talk page regarding FACs that he opposed on the grounds of using fair-use images without clarification. I believe that this demonstrates his modus operandi.
 * Excellent work, Dumelow. I look forward to your Featured Topic. Dhatfield (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah me too! I think History of Zanzibar (which is pretty bare and has only two sources) might be next on my list as there is already a featured List of Sultans of Zanzibar.  It might take me a while to get the whole topic covered though! - Dumelow (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comment Support The article seems overly reliant on two sources, Speller and Parsons. I notice Parsons 107 is used as a citation in 15 instances. Otherwise the article looks good. I would lean towards support. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at the article. Yes it is very annoying that they were the only journal articles I could find which dealt with the revolution (and even then somewhat indirectly, Parsons writing mainly about the mutinies and Speller about the British reaction - although both deal quite extensively with the actual revolution as well) but I simply could not find any others.  However I do think that the article is comprehensive,  being backed up by eight contemporary news reports, and contains almost everything that is known about this rather confusing and ill-documented revolution - Dumelow (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you; lack of available sources can be very fustrating. I'm not disputing the comprehensiveness of the page, just that its is drawn from a relatively narrow range of views. I need to look closer at what claims these two are being used to support, if it is just basic facts, there is no real problem. Do you have access to online / university etc liabries? Maybe ask other editors who have brough articles on modern African history here if they can pass on material (I hope that doesn't sound condesending). I'll see what I can find (will take a few days as I am busy stuffing myself with choclate eggs at the moment). Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have access to the University of Nottingham library but it doesn't carry anything of note. Most of the books on this era are, unfortunately, of the unreliable memoir/autobiography type.  I think the refs look unbalanced as most of the speller/parsons one come under the foreign reaction section.  In the important sections detailing the actual revolution (background, revolution, aftermaths) they are more varied.  By my count those sections include 11 parsons references, 26 speller references and 41 others - whilst still slanted towards speller it is far from based entirely on him.  Speller picks up alot more refs in the foreign reaction (particularly British response) section due to his paper focussing on that aspect and for which he is the only writer who focuses on that aspect.  If you find any useful references please let me know and I would be more than glad to add them to the article - Dumelow (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The legacy section is very much underdeveloped. It only reiterates what was said earlier. I'm sure there were deep political, economic and societal revibrations not yet hinted at in the article's current state. Also is this section properly named; would aftermat or some such, be more appropriate. I realse that ready availability of sources is an issue; but I doubt that they are not out there to be found. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have been looking around and found some information on a social housing project in a geography journal which I have added and a little about how the revolution is seen by historians. There is also a source on the impacts on the youth of Zanzibar which seems quite useful which I will try to get around to adding later today or tomorrow.  Let me know if this sort of thing is a useful addition to the article.  Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now completely rewritten the legacy section and it includes a lot more about the post-revolution history and politics. Hopefully it is better now? - Dumelow (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Section is much improved. I've swithced to support on the basis that the sources you have used meet WP:RS, and are the best available. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 as follows: Although Faschua Nua opposed without much elaboration, his opinion is not baseless. Fair use images are mainly meant to show something that words cannot effectively convey; they support the text written, to illustrate some concept (art style, atmosphere, metaphysical commentary) that have been discussed, so that readers gain a further understanding of what has been said. A picture that can be expressed with words alone fails this idea. Furthermore, when a non-free image is used, it must be clearly identified as to who the copyright owner of the photo is (the purpose, which I hazard, to be for attribution and contact in case someone wishes to reproduce the image). Ref: WP:NFCC, which fair use images have to comply with all of its 10 criteria.


 * File:Zanzibar revolution troops.jpg: why is this picture needed? "Armed civillians" describes the picture perfectly.  Simply put, this is just a photo of armed civillians as they stood outside a gate in the middle of nowhere.  Can one really recognise the rifles to be of British make?  The significance of the image is in question.  Who owns the copyright to this photo?  Definitely not the website owner this image comes from.
 * File:Zanzibar grave.jpg: if the horrific nature of a "mass grave of Arabic bodies" needs to be illustrated, I am not sure this is the image to do it. On first glance, it appears to be a bunch of white dots in a pit.  Even after knowing that the picture is supposed to be a mass grave, no emotions are felt.  Simply put, this image is so far removed from the actual subject, it retains no "atmosphere" to make it non-replaceable.  One cannot identify a body, hence one cannot feel anything about the imagery.  The intent is to show the sense of scale of the massacre; however, since the bodies are not identifiable, that is not done.  Best to find a screenshot taken from one end of the pit, showing a stretch of recognizable bodies piled up on top of each other.  The atmosphere of that imagery could prove to be some significance.  The copyright owners of the video are not stated.
 * File:Karume and chinese.jpg: why should this picture be needed to "[provide] clear evidence [of] foreign involvement"? Would reliable documentary proof not suffice?  Why is "some" used when only 2 of the people shown are of Oriental appearance?  A picture cannot provide proof that they are Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Vietnamese.  Words can perfectly convey the entire aspects of this photo ("Abeid Karume sits with his advisors, foreign and local, surveying the scenes."), which does not seem significant.  A crop of this image can be used to identify Abeid Karume in his article, but not here.  Same as the revolution photo, who is the copyright holder of this photo?

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, they are very useful as my knowledge of what can be fair-use is quite poor. I could not find a screenshot that showed the bodies any clearer than the one that is in there (the only video I have seen is of too poor quality), would it be better to remove it entirely?  I will remove the other two images from the article as it is now clear to me that they are not needed.  Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * After considering this more carefully, I agree with Jappalang (thank you for the comprehensive and rational arguments) regarding File:Zanzibar revolution troops.jpg and File:Karume and chinese.jpg. The mass grave, however is very evocative for me. Maybe it's something about having lived in Africa and having seen the 'politics' first hand. This image was taken from a helicopter, using a video camera. With all due respect, Jappalang, I'm not sure you understand that someone standing next to the pit with a Nikon was the next candidate to be in it. This was not Vietnam, Beirut or Yugoslavia. This was Zanzibar in 1964 and if African revolutions posed for mug shots, they would look like this.
 * Regarding fair use: the best analogy I have been able to come up for fair use images relates to plagiarism. Not that I equate the two, I don't, but in order to ensure that one is not violating the spirit of the law (the letter is merely a crude approximation to the spirit) it is crucial to find and acknowledge the original authors of the work so that any credit due for the creation of the work accrues to them, rather than oneself or another plagiarist. Credit where credit is due. Dhatfield (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought the camera crew would have a higher power zoom lens available. A low resolution sample of the film showed that there was one scene where they flew around a graveyard, and the copter swooped in low, giving a close-up view of a circle of dead in one corner (under a tree I think).  That might be a better representation of the event than the graves.  Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the scene at 1:05:15 in this version? I have a screen cap and if you are OK with it I will replace the other image - Dumelow (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1:05:10 (close up) or 1:05:12 (slightly farther, circular shape more pronounced) would be good; however, the important thing is how convincing the fair use rationale for the image can be written up. You might want to focus on the historical significance (why is this image significant to the Revolution, which part of the imagery cannot be easily described in words) and that such images cannot be freely reproduced.  Jappalang (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I used the further away image and uploaded it at File:Zanzibar revolution graves2.JPG, I have replaced the other image (and nommed it for speedy deletion). I have tried to create a robust fair use rationale by following your guidelines.  Hopefully the rationale includes all that you wanted (but I am terrible with images so please let me know if it needs more) - Dumelow (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have uploaded a clearer but smaller sized screenshot of the same scene. I think this image has better significance of the event than the previous (to show the organised nature of the killings), but as this is subjective, others might have a different opinion.  Jappalang (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou Jappalang, the new image is much better - Dumelow (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Remarks:
 * "It is thought that this was an attempt to maintain stability in East Africa, where several army riots had been sparked by the uprising." A bit weasel.
 * Fixed, see below - Dumelow (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * one link to dis. page (Shirazi) needs fixing.
 * I have left this in as it contains the East African definition of what a Shirazi is (see first FAC comment) - Dumelow (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Electoral fraud was suspected." By whom? Unclear.
 * By the ASP, fixed - Dumelow (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 1963, with the number of parliamentary seats increased to 31, another round of voting saw a repeat of the 1961 elections. The ASP, led by Abeid Amani Karume, won 54 percent of the vote but only 13 seats,[11] while the ZNP/ZPPP won the rest and set about strengthening its hold on power." How could this happen? Anything wrong with the electoral law? Can't you explain it a bit, because it happened more than once, and I cannot understand how the electoral law worked.
 * It was apparently due to the way the constituencies were split up, the party which won the most seats got to form the government. It is similar (though not the same) as to how Al Gore lost in the US in 2000.  I have clarified that the constituencies were the reason for this in the article - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Karume negotiated a merger of Zanzibar with Tanganyika, forming the new nation of Tanzania; it is thought that this was an attempt to maintain stability in East Africa, where several army riots had been sparked by the uprising." Not only weasel, but I don't see that presented and analyzed in the main article. How did this merger took place? If you mention it in the lead, you regard it as significant.
 * I think that must have been a carry-over from an older version of the article. I have now changed it and it should only contain info that is in the main body - Dumelow (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the toolbox, some links lack accessdate.
 * Doh! Now fixed - Dumelow (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "A multi-party system was eventually established in 1992, but the country remains dogged by allegations of corruption and vote-rigging." I am confused: if it is now part of Tanzania, can we regard it as a "country". And, besides the Revolutionary Council and House of Representatives, is there also a President, because I see a caption saying "President Amani Abeid Karume".
 * Good point, I have changed this bit and put in some info about the President (the elder Karume was the first officeholder) - Dumelow (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides that, it looks nice.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.