Jump to content

Talk:Second Boer War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleSecond Boer War was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 11, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

References

[edit]
reference info for Second Boer War
unnamed refs 88
named refs 50
self closed 52
cs1 refs 106
cs1 templates 176
harv refs 25
harv templates 26
sfn templates 62
rp templates 31
refbegin templates 3
cleanup templates 48
webarchive templates 1
use xxx dates dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates 13
cs1|2 ymd dates 10
cs1|2 dmy access dates 23
cs1|2 ymd access dates 23
cs1|2 dmy archive dates 21
cs1|2 ymd archive dates 3
cs1|2 last/first 133
cs1|2 author 1
List of cs1 templates

  • cite book (38)
  • Cite book (51)
  • cite encyclopedia (2)
  • cite journal (10)
  • Cite journal (9)
  • Cite magazine (1)
  • Cite web (18)
  • cite web (47)
List of sfn templates

  • sfn (62)
List of harv templates

  • harvnb (26)
explanations

The references in this article have become something of a mess. I have gone through the list of books etc and fixed nurmerous errors and enhanced some. I am keen to tackle sorting out the actual article references which are a mix of Harvard and adhoc references. If noone objects, I'm going to jump in and do that. I have found that using direct references in the text, and not Harvard, seems to last better here as more editors understand it. BoonDock (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know I’m a little late on responding here but for what it’s worth I say 100% you should/that would be a very much needed and positive contribution. OgamD218 (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I'll take that as permission then. BoonDock (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard references are dreadful. Prone to error and decay. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we agree ;-) BoonDock (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of balance

[edit]

The article seems curiously lopsided. For instance, the 'Imperial involvement' section seems far longer than is merited. The section on Canada alone - which let's face it was of pretty marginal importance by any standards - is as long on that on Concentration Camps, which seems bizarre to say the least. I suppose that this sort of thing often occurs in Wikipedia articles: someone with specific interests comes along and thinks a particular aspect of an article deserves more attention. Then, unless there is an overall editor, that greatly inflated contribution will stay there however insignificant it is compared to other important aspects. So would someone like to do some serious and drastic editing? BobBadg (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some curious reason, Canada's involvement is always hugely well documented and even exaggerated in articles such as this, so I assume it's the same single editor doing it.
The article is biased in general though and badly needs attention. Casualties are hugely lopsided because British wounded are included but Boer are not, etc. if those figures aren't known that's one thing, but as it stands it's very misleading. 2A00:23C5:CE1C:DB01:F7AD:9BF0:3E1B:9971 (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the War

[edit]

The name Boer War is archaic. It has been known as the South African War (1899-1902) for quite some time, because more diverse groups were involved in the conflict. This really should be corrected 41.150.250.78 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left,Right,Back and Centre

[edit]

Hi,GNU is for the best of whom ? and who ? and who's the problem and why it must be governable by wiser mindsets to move south africa foward , not for those want or need civil war to repeat with its decreases.Amooketsi are you care or you don't care?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.245.188 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]