Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/Company rule in Rhodesia/archive1

Company rule in Rhodesia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A new article I've written, which I'm nominated in the hope of getting the African peer review page rolling again. See the associated chat here. I'm intending to ultimately take this to GAN and perhaps even in time to FAC. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AbstractIllusions

Some comments on the page Company rule in Rhodesia. Probably pretty close to GAN (really good article), so some of the points may be for when the article moves to featured. Hope these Areas for improvement help (in order of article):

1. Under heading North to the Zambezi; territorial rivalry with Portugal, the first paragraph is somewhat unclear. Maybe reorganized focusing more on Portugal and interaction with Rhodes. Second paragraph starts most sentences with some version of "Rhodes thought", this impacts readability negatively. In addition, it seems an Area for Expansion would be adding a sentence or two on British/Portuguese foreign policy maneuvers during this period and not just Rhodes' thoughts.

2. Under The Matabele Wars; the First Chimurenga, the sentence "With the help of one of the widows of Mzilikazi, Lobengula's father, an indaba was arranged for 21 August, where Rhodes and three companions would meet the rebel izinDuna in the Matopos Hills" is not clear. Later on in that section "bring its chiefs onside" could use better descriptive terms.

Okay, have re-written, hopefully this is better now. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Under Politics, which would probably be more correctly "Administration". I think reorganization could help, it seems there are three related themes: Administrative Divisions, the name Rhodesia, and structure of Administration. Although the first two are related, they seem too intertwined and it limits readability. One unclear phrase: "government was entirely undertaken by the company until 1917" I think I got the idea but it just didn't sit right.

Okay, have reorganised and split it up. Better now? —Cliftonian (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Under Railways and the Telegraph, maybe I'm not clear but "their construction was largely subsidised by the company", wouldn't their construction have been completely paid for by the company? Maybe the management and first years of business would be subsidised, but construction should have been paid for entirely by the company, right?

The source (The Cambridge History of the British Empire, 1963) says (on p. 789) that the "lines were constructed for a number of railway companies, mainly under guarantee of interest and subsidy by the British South Africa Company, which raised the capital in ordinary shares or debentures as construction proceeded, and which was the ultimate rate-controlling authority. It was not to be expected that these railways, built mainly for strategic reasons, should yield a profit in the early years". I'm no great expert on financial matters; maybe you can help me understand this better? I had interpreted it as the company subsiding construction of the railways by other firms. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that appears to be the case. Weird, but that's the reason to keep it as is. (of course, for further development this may force us to think about B below, what was the corporate policy of the corporate ruled area? It seems odd that they would allow other corporations to extract wealth when the whole point was to have a monopoly in the resources in the area, right?) AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. Areas for Expansion, my knowledge of Rhodesia 1900 is not right on the tip of my mind, so take these with a grain of salt and treat them as areas for possible expansion, not "must be included", so: A) For the title about Company Rule, there could be more about actual rule. Police, great. Military, great. Administrative structure, great. But, education policy, tax policy, missionary policy, agricultural policy, etc? B) If I understand the purpose of this page (which I think is administration/rule and not all history/politics during this time), it still should include some discussion of dissension between the various players in Company policy. It seems to me that South Africa could be a bigger player in the discussion under heading End of company rule. Edit: Another read and I realized this isn't really a problem. C) Portugal disappears from the story a little too early. I seem to remember a border dispute (diplomatic, not military) in the 1910s (end of WWI), let me see if I can find a source, but this might be an area for expansion.

My quick assessment on the issues for getting this GAN ready: A) Well-written. Check. I copyright checked 10 sentences with no problems. B) Factually accurate. Seems great. C) Broad scope. On the border of good, expansion can only help. D) Neutral. Check on two main sources showed good neutrality and weight. E) Illustrations. Seem excellent. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abstract, I'm afraid I'm off to the north for a few days in a few minutes and shan't be back until Wednesday, but I will have a look at this on my return. Have a great half week in the meantime! —Cliftonian (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've run through your comments and addressed some, will do the rest later. Thanks for the great review, I look forward to continuing! —Cliftonian (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All look great so far. Hope it helped. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abstract, sorry it's been a few days; I've just added a new section on the development of Rhodesian agriculture and tobacco, as well as some of the associated policies. I hope this satisfies some of "A" above... in any case I don't think it can hurt. Hope you're well. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be close to assessment (and should fly through), that ag section is really cool. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dumelow

I disambiguated a couple of terms, you might want to check I did them right
"The Matabele Wars..." - "The king died from smallpox while making tracks north...", making tracks sounds a bit colloquial to me, unless it means he was actually creating new trails through the bush.

Okay, have changed to "on his way north" —Cliftonian (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"End of Company Rule" - Perhaps you could add a sentence or two about what happened to the company after it gave up the government of Rhodesia, they were still heavily involved in the area, I think.

Apologies for the brevity of these few points but I am very light on spare time at the moment. The article feels comprehensive enough for me (though I know little about this part of Africa) and I'd say its near enough ready for GAN - Dumelow (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the other comments later, thanks for the review so far. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern skirmishes with Portugal, North-Eastern Rhodesia

Overall, I think this article is very good. The two areas I'd like to mention are slightly outside your main theme, but expanding them might improve its links to related areas.

I think the section on Eastern skirmishes with Portugal rather understates the complex position between 1889 and 1891. I have inserted a link to the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1891, but think more of the material there and on 1890 British Ultimatum could be added. I wrote the first, and greatly expanded the second, article largely from a Nyasaland/Portugal/Britain standpoint, but there are considerations for BSAC rule also. I think the article also misses the point that Portugal has a credible claim to have established effective occupation if Manicaland before 1890 but was driven out by the BSAC using force. I'd be happy to add a few sentences, but want your view first.

North-Eastern Rhodesia was initially administered by Harry Hamilton Johnston, the Commissioner of the British Central Africa protectorate in behalf of the BSAC. The relationship between Johnston and Rhodes was complex, and best left for an expanded article on Johnston, but a bare mention if Johnston's role is probably needed here. Shscoulsdon (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]