Second 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.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Second Boer War is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
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 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]
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]
I can't change links but the link to "Field Commander" in the war crimes tab is linked to the video game "Field Commander" instead of the rank or the position of field commander. 193.180.104.91 (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg)
