Talk:Mafeje affair

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Cielquiparle (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the apartheid South African government pressured the University of Cape Town to rescind an African academic's job offer as it would flout "the accepted traditional out-look of South Africa"? Source: History Workshop Journal African Studies
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rosa Smester Marrero

Created by FuzzyMagma (talk). Self-nominated at 17:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Mafeje Affair; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I'd prefer to give the individual credit by name in the hook. Also, the sources cited spell "outlook" as one word rather than hyphenated; there's an image in the article of a hyphenated "out-look" but that's over a line break. So I would recommend

• ALT1: "... that the apartheid South African government pressured the University of Cape Town to rescind a job offer to Archie Mafeje as it would flout "the accepted traditional outlook of South Africa"?" --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree, but instead of “ to rescind a job offer” use “ to rescind its job offer” FuzzyMagma (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: forgot to ping

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Claim spot, review to come tonight. @FuzzyMagma: Made copyedits as I read. ALT1 is suitable for the main page (AGF on refs behind paywall). Article is neutral and well cited, QPQ there. However, the article is not technically new enough by DYK criteria - most (I'd guess at least 60%) of the text appears in the first version of Archie Mafeje when it was moved to mainspace on 30 December 2022, and Mafeje affair was split off and nominated on 9 February 2023. It's a shame because this is a very good hook, and the article meets all other criteria. Either or , will leave to others' eyes. @Metropolitan90, BlueMoonset, and Theleekycauldron: could I ping you for your thoughts? Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Regrettably, although the article seems to be new, the bulk of its text, according to reviewer Hamilton, existed in an article as of the end of December. The article would need to be to expanded to five times the size of that copied text according to WP:DYKSG#A5: If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. That unfortunately won't be possible. At this point, the article's sole chance for DYK that I can see is to become a Good Article and be nominated again within seven days of that happening. The expansion requirements are irrelevant to GAs. The GA criteria are here; information about the GA nomination process is here. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You are correct about the article. Sorry I did not read the rules before putting the article forward. Thanks @BlueMoonset: and @Hameltion: for reviewing the article and especially Hameltion for the extensive copy editing. Regrettably I lost my patience last time when the DYK nomination was turned to a GA review. I should have defended my corner better. Anyway, I will comeback after I bring the article to GA. FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Archie Mafeje Tyler Morning Telegraph.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 10:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

References

Spotchecks

Pix

• 1 File:Protests UCT 1968 Jameson hall.jpg - satisfies South African copyright requirements but not I think US copyright per "A South African work that is in the public domain in South Africa according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in South Africa in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S.". This pic was not in public domain in South Africa in 1996. Not sure what copyright specialcollections.uct.ac.za holds and the given author "The Librarian, Special Collections, University of Cape Town" is unlikely
• 2 File:Archie Mafeje Tyler Morning Telegraph.webp - nominated for deletion Feb 2023, rationale = "Why should this newspaper-content be PD-South-Afrika? I see none of the mentioned terms met"
• 3 File:Protests_UCT_1968.jpg - same issue as image1
• 4 File:Protests UCT 1968 sit in.jpg - same issue as image1, plus www.news.uct.ac.za is copyright of UCT
• 5 File:Counter-protestors_on_22_August_1968_during_the_Mafeje_affair_02.tif - same issue as image1, also i'm not sure what copyright restrictions the source site https://uct1968sitin.wordpress.com/ is using

Overview

• I'll take this on for review Mujinga (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've hit WP:GAFAIL 1 and 2 whilst checking the pix, I'll stop to discuss. Mujinga (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  I understand your concern. I am confused too as the PD-tag is not consistent with the law at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Africa .. removed picture no. 2 in your list FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga forgot to tag you FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  OK I'm going to quickfail this article then. The problem is summarised in the page you linked: "Note that any work originating in South Africa must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both South Africa and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons". These images are useable on wikipedia by South African copyright law, but not unfortunately under US law. Pictures can be a pain so I'm sorry for that, good luck with the article in future. Mujinga (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga ok images removed FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Images add to the articles but I think even without images, the article still have the merits to stand as a good article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga not sure why you quick failed the article. You mentioned 1 and 2 criteris of WP:GAFAIL but mainly talked about 2 and even 2 mainly tallks about text not images. I wonder if I can challenge your call as being a little bit "trigger happy" .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sure happy to explain:

  "1 It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" - this article was a long way from meeting criterion 6a "media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content"

  "2 It contains copyright violations" - these images are copyright violations, as explained.

  I don't think I was trigger happy, I could have immediately failed this article but since I wanted to give you the chance to respond I left it for two days. Sadly after your response the article was still a quickfail. Mujinga (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga thanks for the detailed answer. Not sure if you can still review the article (since I removed the images, I can also cite some instances when other reviewers gave that leeway especially when things was not clear especially as this problem with license under discussion was not flagged as an issue on Wikipedia commons, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mafeje Affair, Varsity Excerpt 2.jpg). It’s a shame for the work to go unreviewed, especially given that you already have 3 featured articles which means your comments will really help improving this article. I will leave it to you FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2023 (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.

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mafeje affair/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)