The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
Air Rhodesia Flight 825 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
One of the ugliest episodes of the Rhodesian Bush War (or Second Chimurenga, if you prefer) was the deliberate shoot-down in 1978 of Air Rhodesia Flight 825, a scheduled civilian flight, by ZIPRA guerrillas. The crash killed 38 of the 56 people on board; the attackers then herded survivors together amid the wreckage and machine-gunned them to death. Naturally, white Rhodesians were outraged, particularly when little sympathy came from overseas. The Smith administration put most of the country under martial law, cut off talks with ZIPRA's political counterpart and launched a series of brutal attacks against ZANLA and ZIPRA positions in Zambia and Mozambique, which were lauded by the Rhodesians as great military successes, but came in for criticism as hundreds of refugees, camping in and around guerrilla positions, were killed. ZIPRA subsequently shot down Air Rhodesia Flight 827 in 1979 in a near-identical incident, killing all on board.
This passed GA and A-class reviews over at MILHIST about a year ago and after a period of reflection I think it is now ready for FA. I hope you enjoy looking it over (as much as one could, considering the distressing subject), and look forward to your comments. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Comments by Lemurbaby
- Lemurbaby ( talk) 01:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support: I was not able to pre-review this article, but it seems to have been very thoughtfully put together and has no doubt benefited from sundry eyes at the MilHist A-class review. It is excellent work; I have just a few minor quibbles, mainly relating to uses of particular words:
A sombre story, and well worth reading. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support – Sombre indeed, and scrupulously dealt with. The nominator has a track record of bringing to FAC articles on important topics of which I and perhaps many of us are ignorant. This is no exception. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I have no hesitation in supporting its promotion to FA. I have carefully combed the prose in search of something to quibble at, but have failed. Top marks, Cliftonian. Maybe a less downbeat topic next time? – Tim riley ( talk) 00:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Note -- Brian or Nikki, could you undertake a source review if you haven't already? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Sources review: No issues. All sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability and are properly formatted. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
Air Rhodesia Flight 825 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
One of the ugliest episodes of the Rhodesian Bush War (or Second Chimurenga, if you prefer) was the deliberate shoot-down in 1978 of Air Rhodesia Flight 825, a scheduled civilian flight, by ZIPRA guerrillas. The crash killed 38 of the 56 people on board; the attackers then herded survivors together amid the wreckage and machine-gunned them to death. Naturally, white Rhodesians were outraged, particularly when little sympathy came from overseas. The Smith administration put most of the country under martial law, cut off talks with ZIPRA's political counterpart and launched a series of brutal attacks against ZANLA and ZIPRA positions in Zambia and Mozambique, which were lauded by the Rhodesians as great military successes, but came in for criticism as hundreds of refugees, camping in and around guerrilla positions, were killed. ZIPRA subsequently shot down Air Rhodesia Flight 827 in 1979 in a near-identical incident, killing all on board.
This passed GA and A-class reviews over at MILHIST about a year ago and after a period of reflection I think it is now ready for FA. I hope you enjoy looking it over (as much as one could, considering the distressing subject), and look forward to your comments. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Comments by Lemurbaby
- Lemurbaby ( talk) 01:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support: I was not able to pre-review this article, but it seems to have been very thoughtfully put together and has no doubt benefited from sundry eyes at the MilHist A-class review. It is excellent work; I have just a few minor quibbles, mainly relating to uses of particular words:
A sombre story, and well worth reading. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Support – Sombre indeed, and scrupulously dealt with. The nominator has a track record of bringing to FAC articles on important topics of which I and perhaps many of us are ignorant. This is no exception. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I have no hesitation in supporting its promotion to FA. I have carefully combed the prose in search of something to quibble at, but have failed. Top marks, Cliftonian. Maybe a less downbeat topic next time? – Tim riley ( talk) 00:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Note -- Brian or Nikki, could you undertake a source review if you haven't already? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Sources review: No issues. All sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability and are properly formatted. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply