Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paul Kruger/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC) [1].

Paul Kruger

Notified: Cliftonian (user is now a different username and, imo, wants to vanish), WikiProject South Africa, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Politics, Vital articles, 2020-06-16 2022-11-05

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because buidhe expressed concerns about the quality of sources in June 2020, and posted numerous additional sources on the talk page. This concerns has not been addressed yet, and there are also numerous sources in the "Further reading" section that should also be considered for inclusion in the article. There are also

• I agree with buidhe's comments.
• It's also notable that most of the sources pre-date the development of the anti-Apartheid movement outside South Africa and the fall of the Apartheid regime. This may reflect the period in which readers and publishers had the most interest in Kruger, but I'm sceptical about the extent to which this is an issue given lots of revisionist works have been published on South African history since the 1980s internationally and since the 1990s in South Africa.
• The article's heavy reliance on books by Johannes Meintjes is also potentially concerning: I'd want evidence that a South African historian living in South Africa in the late 1960s and early 1970s is considered usable by modern historians to be comfortable with this given the oppression of views critical of white rule that was a core feature of the Apartheid regime. The material cited to this source seems to be very sympathetic towards Kruger, including some dubious claims (e.g. ""Once seen, he is not easily forgotten", wrote Lady Phillips. "His greasy frock coat and antiquated tall hat have been portrayed times without number ... and I think his character is clearly to be read in his face—strength of character and cunning."")
• There is virtually no material on Kruger's period as leader on his policies towards the black majority (which were presumably oppressive given he was running a state dominated by the white minority). These sections are focused on high politics, military matters and economic issues which is plainly too nrrow.
• The section of the article on the Second Boer War seems brief and rather sympathetic to the architect of this disaster for his cause.
• The 'Exile and death' section is too detailed, and takes a rather romantic view of Kruger - for instance, he's portrayed as a hero in Europe despite his total failure there.
• The text of the article is generally quite sympathetic to Kruger. He was a colonist, imperialist and white supremacist who led his country to total ruin, but the article generally portrays him as a hero. I doubt this reflects the tone of modern scholarship. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC concerns have not been addressed, no edits since nomination. (t · c) buidhe 02:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - I agree with Nick-D's concerns, and there have been no improvements made to the problematic sourcing. Hog Farm _Talk 14:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per my comments above Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist detailed concerns have not been addressed at all. (t · c) buidhe 10:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per Nick-D's sourcing concerns. Hog Farm _Talk 14:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.