Template:Did you know nominations/The Mafeje Affair
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Cielquiparle (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mafeje affair
... 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
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)
