Talk:Mafeje affair/GA2

GA Review

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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: FuzzyMagma (talk · contribs) 12:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 10:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this page, I can see that it's been here for a long while. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

General comments

The sourcing on this article is inadequate, and I will be quickfailing it.

Prose and contents

Lede

• Move source out of lede per MOS:LEAD

Images

Your comment about images: Note: images are hidden to avoid quick fail if their copy right is disputed is very concerning. Why haven't you checked if they are disputed? That makes the article more liable for quickfail than if you had just kept them in.

Sources

• I'm not really happy at the Medium post being tagged under a different name. That is almost certainly not RS given it appears to be blog written by a grad student.
• "isreview.org" needs to be changed to International Socialist Review, it's misleading. This is also a non-peer reviewed Marxist journal/magazine: it will need attribution. Same with Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung. This is a lobby group.
• Issues with formatting, i.e. second source classified as "Thesis thesis"
• There is a huge reliance on primary sources in the article. This is particularly troubling given the political nature of the article, and the era in South Africa it is reporting on. An article of this type needs to rely on secondary sources. Especially given the problem below:
• I can't evaluate the reliability of some of these newspapers, given they don't have links and are incorrectly written; i.e. "Argus" instead of "Argus Bureau", which could lead to confusion with Cape Argus.
• Varsity keeps being cited (in about 15 separate references), but nowhere is this explained that it is a student newspaper. It needs to be linked.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

I will note as I didn't include it in the review: the thesis used as a source was not approved so really can't be used as a source. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)