Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Action at Sihayo's Kraal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Matarisvan (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Action at Sihayo's Kraal

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

Action at Sihayo's Kraal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I don't have as much time to edit on here as I used to but I've been focusing a bit on improving existing articles rather than creating new. Catlemur kindly reviewed this article on the first engagement of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War for GA back in 2020. I've had a read through and think it could be a candidate for A-class (and possibly onwards to FA), but it's been four years since I brought anything here so please feel free to disabuse me of that notion! Any and all feedback welcomed - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Looks good. Some comments:

  • "The action is believed to have led Cetshwayo to attack Chelmsford's force in preference to the two other British columns operating in Zululand." You haven't told the reader who Cetshwayo was.
Done and linked, I also clarified that he ordered the attack and didn't lead it himself - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1st battalion", "3rd regiment" Capitalise "Battalion" and "Regiment" when in use as a unit title.
Corrected, I think I got them all - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: you linked "battalion" on the second use instead of the first
Switched - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, done - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the meantime Russell's mounted contingent had also reached the heights." Comma after "meantime"
Added, there was also one in "Action" where I did the same - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Zulus were driven off by 10.00 am" should be "10:00 am" (MOS:TIME)
Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over Hawkeye7, I think I've addressed all your comments - Dumelow (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I will try to review this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 20:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead mentions 40 Zulu killed, but the aftermath has only an estimated 30, which seems to be the max from the description of the battle as well (12 in the gorge + 10-18 on the heights)
Good spot, the British narrative of the campaign (Rothwell) is more definitive stating "the losses on each side were as follows: Zulu, 30 killed, 4 wounded, 10 prisoners; British forces, 2 natives killed, 1 officer and 1 non-commissioned officer wounded, and 12 natives wounded"; I've amended the numbers in the article to suit and corrected a typo in the page number I had for Rothwell - Dumelow (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead uses the exact number of 22 British wounded, but the body places more uncertainty on this figure. The infobox has 20 NNC + 3 officers/NCOs
There's a bit of inconsistency in the sources, I've tried to settle on a minimum figure taken from the official British narrative and added a bit of detail in a footnote - Dumelow (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is in good shape and I expect to support once the casualty inconsistencies get sorted out. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Hog Farm, some good points on consistency. I have tried to address them above - Dumelow (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - Zawed

[edit]

Some comments:

  • Possible add mention of the death of Mkumbikazulu kaSihayo in the lead? That section reads well otherwise.
Added in brackets in the sentence dealing with Zulu casualties - Dumelow (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: ...Cape of Good Hope they had previously shown...: should they be it (referring to the British government)?
I think this might be a British English thing, "the government" can be plural or singular depending on context; to me "it" sounds wrong here. On review I wasn't happy with how these sentences flowed so have restructured and think I have avoided this issue - Dumelow (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: ...returned to Chelmsford's camp by that evening, he reported...: not sure about that comma. Is this be the start of new sentence or perhaps it should be a semi-colon?
I went with a semi-colon but happy to split into a new sentence if you think it's needed - Dumelow (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: Chelmsford determined to attack Sihayo's Kraal: lower case on the Kraal?
Yes, you're right. I had been wildly inconsistent throughout the article. Now lower case throughout and moved to that title - Dumelow (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advance: looks fine
  • Action: ...more gently sloping part of the Ngedla.: "...more gently sloping part of the hill"?
Agreed and changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Action: the entire 1st Battalion of the 3rd Regiment of the Natal Native Contingent: use the abbrev for NNC, since you have introduced in the Advance section. There is another mention of the Natal Native Contingent later in this section as well.
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Action: ...attempt to seize the cattle, they would be supported by three... : "...attempt to seize the cattle, they would be supported by three"
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Action: a little after 8.00 am.: inconsistent treatment of time i.e. am. vs a.m. There is an example in the last para of this section.
Good spot. I think I've now standardised them all to be without the full stops - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Action: Black moved between parties of the NNC trying, largely in vain, to encourage them forwards.[30]: I just wonder if nb3 might be better placed here?
Moved - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Action: losses of 10-18 dead: endash instead of a hyphen I think? Also write the numbers for consistency with how numbers are dealt with in aftermath section
Written out using "and" instead of a dash - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burning of the kraal: looks fine
  • Afermath: In nb4, "belonged to the 2nd battalion", should the battalion be capitalised?
Yes, I think so. Changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath: He had left just 200-300 men: endash instead of a hyphen I think?
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interpretation: looks fine

The article looks in great shape, just some nitpicks. Zawed (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Zawed, I think I've responded to all your points above - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed, any further comments to come from your end? The review is very close to closing now. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This all looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Source review

[edit]

Dumelow, my comments:

  • Duminy & Ballard 1981, Greaves 2004, Greaves 2012b, Rothwell 1989, and Snook 2010 are the only sources which have the locations of publication. You should either remove the locations from these sources or add them for all the other sources.
  • How reliable are the following publishers: Windrow & Greene and Archival Publications?
  • Link the following authors in the biblio: Ian Knight (historian), John Laband, Donald R. Morris?

Once the above are done, I can do the spot checks. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan, thanks for starting the review. I have added the missing locations. I don't have the Archival Publications book to hand so have replaced it with a citation to one of the Greaves works. Windrow & Greene were active in the 1990s; they were run by military historians Martin Windrow and Alan Greene, the former has been widely published elsewhere. Ian Knight is perhaps the foremost Zulu War historian so I am confident in the reliability of his work and his 1992 book, which focuses specifically on the early days of the war, contains one of the most comprehensive descriptions of this action - Dumelow (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've now linked the authors at their first entry in the bibliography - Dumelow (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks: #11, #13, #22, #53: all ok. The source review is also a pass now, @Dumelow. The article now has 3 supports, and has passed both the image and source reviews. It has therefore been promoted to A class. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Action_at_Sihayo%27s_Kraal&oldid=1297151469"