Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conscription in Rhodesia/archive1

[[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|(discuss)]] 19:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

[[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|(discuss)]] 19:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

*Thank you for this. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

*Thank you for this. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

====LivelyRatification====

This is my first FA review/comment, so I'm choosing to only review the element of prose. I have a passing familiarity with Rhodesia and the Bush War (read: listened to a jokey podcast about it once) but other than that, I have little familiarity with military history or the Rhodesian governnment.

* {{red|The Rhodesian Front was deeply committed to maintaining the white community's privileged status, which motivated a decision to declare independence rather than initiate a transition to majority rule which the British government was advocating for.}} I think this is better introduced by contrasting the Rhodesian Front's racist stance with the NIBMAR position of the British government, rather than mentioning the declaration of independence here. I would suggest {{green|The Rhodesian Front was deeply committed to maintaining the white community's privileged status, while the British government advocated for majority rule before independence. This led to the government issuing Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from the United Kingdom in November 1965...}}

* {{red|UDI was illegal}}...under what law? British colonial law? International law? A treaty signed? Perhaps this is left vague because the source is similarly vague, but specificity here may be wise.

* {{red|The number of white people in Southern Rhodesia increased from 82,000 in 1946 to 250,000 in 1965 almost entirely because of immigration from mainly English-speaking countries.}} I would split this into two sentences, maybe make it "this was almost entirely". There's also a bit of redundancy owing to "almost" and "mainly".

* {{red|coloured and Indian men were not liable for conscription at this time.}} Perhaps change to "not eligible for conscription" or "not liable to be conscripted".

* The RAR is introduced in the conscription of whites et al section but its purpose is not explained. Is it analogous to the armed forces of Rhodesia? Do we know anything about why it was black-majority, if conscription in the country was race-selective?

* {{red|The most senior coloured soldier in the army, a Warrant Officer 1, resigned in protest.}} I assume we do not know this person's name, but it may be worth mentioning.

* I note that there is a difference in the description of white and black draft-dodgers. White men between 50 and 60 are described as having "{{red|only 20 percent report[ing] for duty}}", while a "{{red|widespread boycott}}" is described among black men when only 300/1500 report for duty. This presumably owes to differences in the source, and the obvious political nature of a black person signing up for an army that is (more or less) in defence of white supremacy, but I write this because I think it might be interesting for the author to consider, if not an active problem to fix.

* {{red|The government also accepted an offer from a computer company to develop a database...}} Do we know which computer company this was? I assume not, but my curiosity was piqued by this.

* {{red|The government was able to refute allegations of sportsmen and homosexuals being able to evade conscription, but there was a perception the sons of prominent citizens were not called up.}} Maybe this would be too granular, but I am also immediately intrigued as to why sportsmen and homosexuals were perceived as being able to evade conscription. Was there an exemption for homosexuality, as was common among militaries at the time? Did an analogous exemption exist for sportsmen?

* {{red|As late as 1977 the Army did not keep records of deserters.}} "As late as" implies to me that it was exceptional they hadn't started keeping records, but 1977 is so late in Rhodesia's existence that it might be better to note that they (presumably) only began keeping records of deserters in 1977, unless the source states something like "there were no records of deserters in 1977" or somesuch.

* {{red|Peter McLaughlin, who later became a historian, noted in 1978...}} What was he at the time?

* {{red|To expand the pool of white manpower, the Rhodesian government encouraged immigration into the country.}} From where exactly? I assume the campaign was targeted towards specific countries, given the white-supremacist policies of the Rhodesian government, is there any further information on this?

I hope my comments are helpful. Overall, I considered this article to be a very intriguing and detailed examination of an, er, interesting moment in military history. I was particularly amused by the white nationalist MP who proposed mandatory dog tagging of those eligible for conscription. I think the prose is generally high-quality and easy to follow, even for someone with little knowledge in the topic. I am not sure that I fully understand the featured article criteria as a new editor, so I will refrain from giving my support, but with greater familiarity I likely would. Best of luck with this nomination and great work on a very detailed look into this topic! --[[User:LivelyRatification|LivelyRatification]] ([[User talk:LivelyRatification|talk]]) 11:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)