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.
I would recommend dropping the prenominal "chief" in first sentence. I didn't see any sourcing to her status as a Chief - is there reliable sourcing for this? It also seems something that she herself never embraced, especially since she was organising against the aristocratic system in the anti-tax struggles of the 1940s. It also seems somewhat UNDUE to link to the aristocratic system in the lead. I would argue she had far more connection to Panafricanism and socialist politics - neither of which are mentioned in the lead.
My mistake, I found the referencing in the article, but it reinforces the point about linking to the aristocratic system in the lead, it was an appointed position, not inherited. For the infobox, I don't think it should be linked to the aristocratic system, since the title at that time was more akin to being a member of the UK House of Lords, rather than being a member of the aristocracy. --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) DoneReply
Citations in lead should be dropped (as far as I can see these are all reflected in the text) per MoS. Lead should mention she played a role in Nigerian independence movement. "...traveling nationally and internationally to advocate for Nigerian women’s right to vote." This implies her activities internationally were Nigeria-focussed, but I think it would be better to suggest she became involved in women's rights movements internationally. Done
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Earwig shows up a violation to a Facebook post, but as far as I can see that looks to be material copy and pasted from this article and then posted. No other problems detected.
There's a few areas which could be elaborated, but nothing to impede GA status:
Her Pan-Africanism.
A couple of parts of in her life could be possibly filled out if material existed (eg the early experience in the UK and change in her views...who did she know at this time? with whom was she interacting?)
Legacy - very significant influence on women activists in Nigeria and Africa.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
The purchase of a car and driving reference is probably trivial - if it can't be verified that she was the first woman to hold a driver's licence in Nigeria, I would suggest dropping. For what it's worth, the fact that she has a car is far more significant in terms of a reflection of her privileged status at that point in time. In the legacy section, I find the references to the October 1 film and Google Doodle trivial given the scale of the person we're talking about.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
While extremely positive towards her, this is reflective of the sources utilised. However, I think it is important to incorporate something from Adam Meyer's Niaja Marxisms, whose characterisation of Ransome-Kuti portrays a person no less important, but somewhat more complex than many other sources. pp.172-176 cover her and there is some useful material there, two possible incorporations:
there's a quote on her views on religion (p.175) - might be useful to include since there is no direct quotation of her anywhere in the text. Later
Meyer (p.173) has a useful categorisation of her politics and relationship with official communism (which comes across better than references denying she was a "Communist"): "FRK was not a communist in her own understanding but was ‘not frightened or repelled by communism either’." Done
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
I have to admit I'm not very comfortable with the UNESCO sourced drawings. The problem essentially is the text in the images is far from NPOV and the one with her "thinking", without clear attribution, seems to reflect creative licence. Done
There's a 1929 image of Abeokuta on Commons which could be better used in the early life section than the present image. Done
7. Overall assessment.
First, apologies for the time taken to complete the review and thank you very much for your patience; it's only fair for me to be equally patient with your responses! Second, thank you for working on this and bringing the article to GA status - Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti is a very important figure in 20th Century colonial history and African politics and fully deserving of an extensive treatment. Third, the article is very close to GA, there is not a lot of work required; my two biggest concerns are the UNESCO illustrations and the lead. Please let me know your reactions and if you don't have JSTOR access (or something else) to get a hold of the Meyer text, let me know.
Hi Goldsztajn -- thanks for your patience. :-) I'm juggling a few different things this week. Right now, I'm waiting for some free time to properly check out that Meyers source and see if I can further expand on any of the topics you mentioned. Also: I may need some more advice on what to do about the chieftancy/aristocracy items in the lead. Your point about avoiding undue emphasis makes total sense. Lots of sources (especially Nigerian ones) refer to Ransome-Kuti as "Chief" or "traditional aristocrat", but it took me forever to find any info/sourcing for her chieftancy position (definitely appointed), and it doesn't seem to have been a major part of her life. However, I also had a discussion with a Nigerian editor some time ago who argued that including the Nigerian prenominal "Chief" was just as valid as including the British "Sir" or "Dame" (etc), and that made sense to me too. What if I removed "traditional aristocrat" but kept the prenominal (perhaps re-linked to "Oloye")? Alternatively, do you have any suggestions or resources re: Nigerian titles that could help me figure out the appropriate solution? I don't have a lot of background knowledge on how honorary titles work (either Nigerian or British). Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi Alanna the Brave - in terms of new material, nothing in the article needs expanding to pass GA from my point of view, I just highlighted a few points I thought might be expanded upon. In terms of her status as a Chief, I'm less worried about including it (or not) than about highlighting the aristocratic system in the lead and calling her a traditional aristocrat in the first paragraph. As an appointed member of the Western House of Chiefs, if I understand things correctly, she would have been considered Oloye/Ijoya. What do you think of the idea of not linking in the lead and just having Chief Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti and in the infobox the prenominal "Chief" that links to Oloye? I did come across a source which indicated the title of Oloye for those sitting in the House of Chiefs who were not higher status...let me dig that out. --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
That sounds reasonable -- feel free to pass on the Oloye source if you find it, but I've made the changes. As another note re: manual of style issues, I've removed all citations in the lead but one (it's technically there for a direct quote). I have to focus on a non-Wiki project tomorrow, but I'll be back on Monday to finish up this review! Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Have a look at this (link should take you to page 38) - I think it is relatively clear in that it identifies Ransome-Kuti as acquiring the title through appointment to the Western House of Chiefs. Interestingly, reading between the lines in Sklar (1963 p.238), it would suggest she was the only person in the entire House not aligned to the Action Group.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Goldsztajn -- that's interesting about the political affiliations within the House of Chiefs! It's certainly plausible that Ransome-Kuti was the chief in question (it's unfortunate the source doesn't name names). I've added two new quotes to the article (reflections on communism and class differences/privilege), plus a bit of legacy/influence content from the Adam Mayer source -- see what you think. I like the quote about her religious views, but I'm not sure where that could be comfortably placed within the article's structure right now. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi Alanna the Brave - changes look excellent! I think the religion quote can be incorporated at a later stage, it fills out the perspective on her, but does not fundamentally change any aspect (which for me would be a criteria to include it now). Two quick questions and that's it. The source [1] for the Western House of Chiefs appointment and the Oloye title, what do you think of replacing the source with this one: Pan-Africanism: Political Philosophy and Socio-Economic Anthropology for African Liberation and Governance p. 803? My concern is that some of the material from the ontribemag.com source looks like it has its origin in this article; it also incorrectly states she was elected to the Western House of Chiefs, when it was an appointed position. What do you think of the rephrasing the paragrpah along these lines: During the 1950s, Ransome-Kuti was granted the chieftaincy title of Oloye of the Yoruba people, due to her appointment to the Western House of Chiefs. She was the first woman in that House and one of only a handful of women to sit in the Nigerian Houses of Chiefs during their existence. She also served as a board member for the Nigerian Union of Teachers. ? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hmm... I would definitely support finding a stronger source than the OneTribeMag article, but I'm not sure about that Pan-Africanism book: the pages 803/804 quote a Nigerian National News service article from 2011 as the source material for info about Ransome-Kuti's House of Chiefs appointment, but the wording of the news service quote seemed very familiar to me -- it appears to be copied and pasted directly from the 18 December 2010 version of the Wikipedia article. Did you want to take some time (say 48 hours) and see if either of us can locate any other sources, or are you okay with leaving the OneTribeMag source for now? Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
This is a frustratingly difficult issue to nail down! What's somewhat surprising is that it does not seem to come up in the Johnson-Odim/Mba biography (although I only have access to what is available via Google books, which is not the full text). These two sources give clear descriptions that the positions in the Western House of Chiefs were appointed:p.37p.30; The Historical Dictionary indicates the Western House of Chiefs existed from 1952 until 1966; this indicates she was a member in the early 1950s p.25. I'm in two minds about the Pan-African text, the point you raise is correct, although in its defense it does indicate it is quoting the Nigerian National News Service ...and the only text that is relevant for the citation is the last sentence in the top paragraph of p. 803: She was also the first woman to hold a seat in the Western House of Chiefs of Nigeria as an “Oloye” of the Yoruba people. ... which is not part of the quoted, italicised text. Let me know what you think. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Alrighty -- I'm still not convinced about the Pan-African text, but I don't think we're going to find anything stronger online at this point (it's definitely a frustrating research point), so I'll concede on this one. I've re-written/re-cited the paragraph minus the OneTribeMag source. Let me know if you think it works or if it needs anything else. :-) Also, I wanted to say thank you for finding and uploading those new/improved photos of Ransome-Kuti at the beginning of this review -- I think they're a great addition. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Don't get me wrong, I'm not satisfied by it either...I guess I feel it is just less bad. However, the onetribe piece you found has two excellent photos at the bottom (which everywhere else I've seen are in much poorer quality), am trying to get a better sense of the date of them (they appear to be late 50s/early 60s) so they can be uploaded. Everything looks great, thanks for responding quickly to me (I have a higher standard to achieve now!) and for your work in bringing this to GA. If at some point you feel like bringing this to FA, ping me, would be happy to assist. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2020 (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.
