Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Kruger/archive1

Paul Kruger
This peer review discussion has been closed. "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 just passed GA after a very complimentary review from Tim riley, and I'm intending to take it to FA, but per Tim's advice to me relatively recently I am bringing it here first. I realise this is a long article (over 14,700 words as of 2 March), and input on where cuts could be made would be much appreciated. Cheers and I look forward to hearing your input. Thanks, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  11:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
As to the length, at which I raised an eyebrow during GAN, I suppose the word count is less important than whether the article seems to the reader to go on too long. The only place here where I slightly glazed over was "Road to war" where the details of the middle paragraphs are more discursive than I felt I needed. But even if you accepted that point and took the secateurs to the section it would save two or three hundred words at most, and perhaps it isn't worth the attempt.
 * Lead
 * "lionise him" – I think of this verb as applying to living people; I'm not sure you can lionise someone who is dead. The examples of usage given in the OED seem to corroborate my view.
 * How about "venerate"? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "his Presidency" – I don't think this wants capitalising. I never quite understand the MoS's rules about capitalising job titles, but though "a new President" may or may not qualify for a capital P, and "President Kruger" certainly does, I'm quite sure "his Presidency" doesn't.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Civil war; Commandant-General
 * "where Schoeman was Commandant-General was censured and relieved of his post" – something has gone off the rails with the prose here
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Under Burgers
 * "bring the South African Republic up to speed with the nations of Europe" – a bit slangy, and not very clear: up to speed in what?
 * I've redrawn to "Burgers busied himself attempting to modernise the South African Republic along European lines, hoping to set in motion a process that would lead to a united, independent South Africa." Is this better, do you think? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * British annexation; first and second deputations
 * "He outlined issues Carnarvon had" – I offer you Gowers on "Issue": "This word has a very wide range of proper meanings as a noun, and should not be made to do any more work – the work, for instance of subject, topic, consideration and dispute."
 * I have reworded to "He outlined criticisms expressed by Carnarvon regarding the Transvaal government" is this better? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "E J P Jorissen refuted most of Carnarvon's allegations" – just checking: you do mean refute rather than just rebut? (I read this over the weekend and felt it winged me.)
 * The source says "refute". Whether this means disproving the allegations or just denying them is not made completely clear but the former is strongly implied. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "advisor" (here and later in the article) – regarded as an Americanism among scrupulous writers of BrEng, who stick to the established "adviser", but of course it may be fine in South African English. I just mention it.
 * OK, thanks, I can never remember this one —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "due to his wide knowledge" – again, I must be careful: "due to" used adverbially as here is established in AmEng, but not in good BrEng where it is confined to adjectival use. You'd want either "owing to" or – better still – "because of" here, if this were BrEng, which of course it isn't.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "His arguments were undermined, however" – I'd lose the "however": a word that so often creeps in when one isn't looking, and weakens one's prose.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Gold rush
 * "Kruger proposed to end the lack of higher education" – this rather peters out. There is no further mention of a university: did the Amsterdam institution get its way against Kruger?
 * No university was built but the source does not say specifically that this was because of the opposition from Amsterdam. I have added a short sentence saying no university was built during Kruger's lifetime along with a footnote saying when the present university was founded (1908). —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "became too British (as opposed to Dutch) in character" – I think it is clear enough what "too British" means here without the four words in brackets.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Two volksraads
 * "a presidential carriage (later a coach)" – I didn't know there was a difference. Is it a distinction worth drawing here?
 * Suppose not. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rising tensions
 * "request that he not go on to Johannesburg" – is there a verb missing here – "…he should not…" – or is this some convoluted subjunctive construction? Not the smoothest of reads either way.
 * Have added "should" as you suggest —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Resurgence
 * "except for with the Orange Free State" – strange phrasing
 * "except vis-a-vis the Orange Free State" better? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Road to war
 * "he did not envision" – unfamiliar verb: why not a plain "envisage" (or even plainer "foresee")?
 * Have gone with foresee —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Second Boer War
 * The third sentence of the first para contains a speculative statement that could do with a citation.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "forbidding them from laying down their arms" – can one forbid from? I can find only forbid to in the OED's examples of use of the verb.
 * Have redrawn —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exile and death
 * "Utrecht, where the President took a comfortable villa – president of what by now? We say in the lead that he was president till 1900, and this is 1901.
 * Ah! Well spotted. Of course he would probably have said at the time that he still was President. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know when you send the article to FAC. –  Tim riley  talk    10:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this Tim; this is very helpful. I will go through your comments either this evening or tomorrow night. I intend to end the peer review after two weeks (16 March) and go to FAC immediately thereafter. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope I have addressed all the issues raised above. Thank you again for this Tim, most helpful. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thoroughly content with all the changes mentioned above.  Tim riley  talk    08:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks again Tim, you have been very helpful. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  14:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Katangais
I found the article to be on the whole informative and engaging, and was pleasantly surprised that despite the length there was no need to soldier through it... it was sufficiently well organised, including an ample amount of visual aid. I did however feel that more sources were needed in the lead, particularly the second and third sentences (a cite for Kruger's apparent perception as the "personification of Afrikanerdom" for example does not appear elsewhere in the text).
 * Yes it does; at the end of the "Two volksraads" section. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There were also what I perceived to be a few peculiar litotes, which I changed to make slightly more palatable. Some redundancy was fixed. The opening sentence which made mention of Kruger's interpretation of the Bible concerning the Flat Earth Theory felt odd and it failed to click with me until reaching the much later description of the Doppers. Since the idea is to summarise the biography in that section I felt it would benefit by axing the excessive wordiness.

Other than that, I couldn't fault the current revision and would support a bid for FAC as or when.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Katangais. I'm glad you like the article. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brigade Piron
I'm very much with Katangais here, I found the article readable and informative. I would, however, say that a picture of a Krugerrand would be very welcome - considering it's a very visible and relevant cultural legacy. Less importantly, I'd also suggest the voortrekker picture is shifted to the left... —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done and done! Thank you for this Brigade Piron. I'm glad you like the article. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from BB
I had intended this to be a general review highlighting areas where I thought that prose cuts could be made to shorten the article. I found very few; although long, the article is quite tightly written, and engagingly so. Words could be saved by rephrasing here and there, but to cut for the sake of doing so might lower the overall quality. Anyway, here are my suggestions, together with a number of general points that cropped up during my reading. I made a few small adjustments myself, which you can view via the edit history.
 * Burgher: Paragraph 2, suggest shorten the anecdote
 * Have shortened —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Mediator: "On 28 June 1858 he was appointed Assistant Commandant-General of the South African Republic". Need to clarify that "he" is Kruger
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Forming the "Dopper Church": the double adverb "extremely strictly" is ugly
 * Redrawn —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Under Burgers:
 * "His ascent to the premiership..." The term "premiership" generally refers to the office of prime minister rather than president
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The rest of the sentence might be contracted thus: "...came shortly after the realization that the Boer republics might stand on land of immense mineral wealth."
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * British annexation; first and second deputations: "harried Burgers relentlessly" – non-neutral phrasing
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Drive for independence:
 * "Around the same time the British restricted Frere's authority to the Cape and appointed a new Governor and High Commissioner for the Transvaal and Natal, Sir Garnet Wolseley, who in September 1879 announced a new Transvaal constitution that introduced a limited degree of self-government". Rather too long for a single sentence.
 * OK; redrawn —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "...prompting the burghers to nearly rise up there and then" – can one be prompted to "nearly" do something? Best reword I think.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "a coarsely-worded statement" – whose opinion? Needs attribution.
 * Meintjes calls it "very rude indeed". Have just cut this out as trying to find another way to word it kind of overloads the sentence. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Transvaal rebellion: the First Boer War
 * "This progressive humiliation..." Wording or opinion needs attribution.
 * OK, attributed to Meintjes and Castle. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "retrocession": uncommon word. Suggest pipe-link to Cession
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Pretoria Convention: clarify what office Kruger held during the events described in this section. He seems to be speaking and acting like a Head of State, which he obviously wasn't until 9 May 1883.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Third deputation; London Convention
 * "The western border question remained unresolved, but Kruger still considered this a triumph". The pronoun "this" needs defining, unless you're saying that Kruger consider the non-resolution of the border question as a triumph.
 * OK: "Kruger still considered the convention a triumph" —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "The deputation went on from London to the continent..." – this might be more accurately expressed as "from London to mainland Europe". London is, after all, part of the continent of Europe.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The description of Rhodes as a "prominent miner" is hilarious but not, alas, encyclopaedic. As well refer to Henry Ford as a prominent car mechanic, or Andrew Carnegie as a railwayman.
 * OK, changed to "mining magnate". —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Gold rush; burghers and uitlanders
 * " He began to be perceived..." → "He was perceived"
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Parenthetical note concerning Bok is unnecessary.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "the new Free State President" – presumably Orange Free State?
 * Ja —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's ages since NHK was mentioned. I think you need to spell it out.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Two volksraads
 * Is this the right heading for this section? For the second part, yes, but the first couple of paragraphs are about something different.
 * OK, changed to just "early 1890s". —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "... but on his return to Pretoria forbade the would-be Bowler Trek from going." From going where?
 * Mashonaland. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "This was challenged in 1891 by the Adendorff Trek, another intended Boer emigration north to Mashonaland that, adhering to the terms agreed with Britain, Kruger outlawed over the protests of Joubert and many others." It's not clear what the Adendorff trek was challenging.
 * I've reworded, hope this is clearer now. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Consecutive sentences should not begin with "This..."
 * Ja —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "his administration" → "Kruger's administration"
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Resurgence
 * To what does this section title specifically refer?
 * That he became very popular again having been not so universally popular for a while. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Slocum story need be no more than a footnote.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Road to war
 * "of a quarter of the volksraad seats to the Witwatersrand" – perhaps "Witwatersrand region", as previously "Witwaterrand" has only been defined in terms of a gold rush.
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Another sentence that needs splitting: "Britain had begun the deployment of troops from elsewhere in the Empire, and Kruger and Smuts felt that from a military standpoint the Boers' only chance was a swift pre-emptive strike, but Steyn was anxious that they not be seen as the aggressors, and held that they should delay until there was absolutely no hope of peace."
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "He informed Kruger that he had come to this conclusion on 9 October" – it's not clear what conclusion he had come to. Presumably that there was no hope of peace, but the wording is presently ambiguous.
 * Redrawn —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Appraisal and legacy
 * "to sabotage and whitewash" → "to sabotage or whitewash", surely?
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "to this day" needs to be replaced by something time-specific, e.g. "still produced and exported in the 21st century".
 * OK —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Smuts told Emily Hobhouse soon after his death" - clarify "his" (unless Smuts was speaking from beyond the grave). IConsider moving this phrase to the beginning of Smuts's encomium. as it sits rather awkwardly in the middle. I might also spend a few words on explaining Hobhouse, rather than requiring eaders to use the link. e.g. "the British humanitarian campaigner".
 * OK, have redrawn as you suggest —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I only glanced at the sources, which superficially look fine. I will give them fuller treatment when the article come to FAC. This is very praiseworthy work, a mighty effort which keeps the reader involved to the end. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review and the very, very kind words Brian. I'm glad you like the article and hope I have addressed all the above concerns. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dank
Just a few copyediting comments: - Dank (push to talk)
 * Generally, the story is well-told and engaging.
 * I'm glad you think so. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  15:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "he headed two deputations to London to try to have this overturned and became the leading figure of the movement to restore the South African Republic's independence. This culminated": Too many instances of "this" in place of a noun. Especially try to avoid using "this" to stand for two different nouns in quick succession.
 * Redrawn —  Cliftonian   (talk)  15:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "following which": uncommon; see this ngram.
 * Redrawn —  Cliftonian   (talk)  15:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "uitlander": per AHD (and per its absence from Cambridge Dictionaries), it hasn't entered the English language, so it should be italicized (without quote marks).
 * I'd rather not italicise "uitlander" myself, for a few reasons: firstly, this article is in South African English, so common Afrikaans terms like "veld", "drift", "laager" etc count as local words; secondly, I think "uitlander" is sufficiently used and understood in English not to be italicised; and thirdly, the word is used so often in the article I think it would be distracting to italicise it on every occasion. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  15:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "created a situation": avoid "situation" when you don't need it (as here); overuse suggests bureaucratese or journalese. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to rephrase here, what do you think? Thanks Dan for the copy-editing thoughts and for your kind words about the article. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  15:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I made one tweak; it looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Baie dankie meneer —  Cliftonian   (talk)  18:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)