Talk:Stella Madzimbamuto

Zimbabwean citizenship

When did Stella obtain Zimbabwean citizenship? Was she a South African-Zimbabwean dual citizen? TJMSmith (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

TJMSmith I don't think she ever naturalized as Zimbabwean, but in her book, it is clear that she identified as such. She has a chapter called "Becoming Zimbabwean". We also know that she lived more years in Zimbabwe than she did in South Africa and that those years in Zimbabwe were when she developed her notability. From Farai's challenge regarding dual nationality, we know that he had Zimbabwean and South African nationality "from birth", i.e. he acquired them from Daniel and Stella, respectively. Yet another reason listing nationality in the lede is a weird policy for women. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Madzimbamuto, 1969

• ... that South African nurse Stella Madzimbamuto (pictured) filed an appeal in 1968 with the British Privy Council which resulted in the Rhodesian government being declared illegal? Source: "In consequence, the usurping government in Rhodesia is not a lawful government, and all its acts and decrees are invalid." p 95
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Utah & Ether
  • Comment: Article is nominated for GA, but within 6 days of creation. Really, really, really want it to appear for International Women's Day, March 8th

Created by SusunW (talk), Ipigott (talk), TJMSmith (talk), and GRuban (talk). Nominated by SusunW (talk) at 23:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - n
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: good to go without image; would be a good quirky. valereee (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

SusunW, the hook statement in the article does not have a direct citation. The source you cite here says p95. The source most closely following the statement says p93. I've inserted, but check my work.

I do not think this image is free use -- it says it's from 1969? We can't use a non-free image on the main page. Can we clarify the status of this image? valereee (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

without image, which I believe is not free use. Note to promoter: Request is for March 8th for International Women's Day. valereee (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

valereee Thank you so much! Photo is definitely freely distributable. Comes from this. Paged through the entire magazine and there is no copyright notice anywhere. Checking the Catalogue of Copyright Entries, the only registrations for something called Lamp are for a journal published by Standard Oil and another by Rosenthal and Smythe. The one with the photo is published by the Friars of the Atonement, Graymoor, Garrison, NY. Public Domain information is that works published in the US between 1927 and 1977 without a copyright notice are in the "public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities". But, I don't care if it has a photo or not for DYK as long as it appears on March 8th. Your citation is fine. Thanks for catching that. SusunW (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stella Madzimbamuto/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 18:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. Initial comments shortly. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Criterion 1 ("well-written"): the article pretty much passes this, I think. I noticed a couple of places which could perhaps be tightened up:

• "Because of limited job ability to blacks in Cape Town" - reads slightly awkwardly to me. Perhaps "Because of limited job opportunities available to blacks in Cape Town"?

I'm not sure it was actually opportunities, they could work, just not where they wanted to, or doing what they were qualified for, and had to get special permits to do it. Zvomuya says "'My main reason for leaving Cape Town was the colour bar, which led to a lack of choice of where one worked because of the colour of one’s skin'. Already she was showing her feisty side by refusing to apply for a pass". In light of that, I changed it to read "Because of limited job choices available for blacks in Cape Town..." If that's okay then  Done SusunW (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• "He was arrested and confined in a detention centre from February 1959 until 8 June 1961. During the period, Daniel was briefly released but after a few days returned to prison several times. Their second child, a daughter named Chipo, was born during this period and was six months old when Daniel was first arrested." - it's slightly disconcerting to read this out of chronological order.

I think I fixed it. It kind of falls into the explanation for the next section. I tried writing it without her book, but there were few dates in the secondary sources, so I finally just broke down and bought her book. I thought I had gotten everything rearranged chronologically, but apparently not in this instance.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Criterion 2 (verifiable): obviously thoroughly cited to plenty of reliable sources. There are a lot of references to Madzimbamuto's autobiography, which is obviously not an independent source, but they seem to comply with WP:ABOUTSELF.

Primarily I used it to reference when things happened chronologically. As you can see from the sea of red, sourcing is often hard to find for Africa and then may or may not be as detailed as we would like. Other than names of people, primary and secondary schools, and her actual separation from Daniel, I tried to avoid using it. SusunW (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Criterion 3 (broad in its coverage): yes, clearly.

Criterion 4 (neutral): apparently so. No obvious concerns.

Criterion 5 (stable): no evidence of editwarring or other stability concerns.

Criterion 6 (appropriately illustrated): images are appropriate and seem to have appropriate copyright tags. I note that both images of Madzimbamuto are actually based on the same photograph, and yet one caption says "in 1969" and the other "before 1969" – which is correct?

I think TJ changed the lede image to "before" too. This was the only free image we could locate. GRuban who helped me research them, noted that as Daniel was in jail in 1969, the photograph that appeared in The Lamp that year could not have been taken at that time and would have had to have been taken earlier. SusunW (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This is pretty much there for Good Article status - just a few lingering points to clear up. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto Thank you very much for your review. Please let me know if there is anything else with which you have concern. SusunW (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

All looking good! I will pass this now: congratulations Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)