Talk:Archie Mafeje

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:Archie Mafeje/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 04:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:QUICKFAIL. I'll list some of the many issues below.

General comments

• See MOS:CURLY.
• The heading "Further readings" should be "Further reading" and should come after the references per MOS:LAYOUT.

Lead

• I don't think the WP:LEAD adequately summarizes the body of the article. It should be expanded to do so.
• It's a bit odd to include Mafeje's father but not his mother as "parent" in the infobox.
• It seems unnecessary to link The “Mafeje Affair” in the infobox since that redirects to a section in the body of the article itself.

Early life and education

• was bron – typo.
• and his Mother – stray capitalization.
• Archie was the oldest of 6 other siblings – obviously not the oldest of the other siblings. Oldest of 7 siblings, oldest with 6 other sibling.
• wit a list – typo.
• a list of alumni that include – subject–verb mismatch.
• Link the first instance of Non-European Unity Movement, not a later one.
• a black univeristy – typo. Also WP:EASTEREGG.
• in the mid 1955 – "in mid-1955".
• he left after one year, because he was explled – it's a bit off to say that he both left and was expelled. The former suggests agency in this turn of events, the latter suggests the opposite.
• he was explled – typo.
• joining the minority for non-white student numbering less than twenty out of five thousand students – what is this meant to convey? It's a bit difficult to parse.
• He then switched to study social anthropology in 1959, and earning a Bachelor of Arts in Urban Sociology with honours in 1960 followed by a Master of Arts (MA) with a distinction in Political Anthropology before leaving the institution in 1963. – verb tense.
• Mafeje's Master’s thesis was supervised by Professor Monica Wilson. [...] The study was written by Monica Wilson – did Wilson write Mafeje's thesis, not just supervise it?
• In the early 1970s, Mafeje distance himself – verb tense.
• pointed to Wilson’s underlying Christian liberal ideology as a limitation as it favours Eurocentric theoretical approaches – not neutral. This phrasing takes Mafeje's side by putting his viewpoint in WP:WikiVoice. This could be remedied by rephrasing: "[...] limitation, saying that it favours [...]" (or similar).
• a group that was "illegally gathered" – this needs further explanation. The "scare quotes" would seem to suggest political repression. If so, that should be stated explicitly (and properly sourced, of course).
• in 1967 (1966, 1968, or 1969) – if this is meant to convey disagreement between the sources about the exact year, I would rephrase it along the lines of "in the second half of the 1960s" and add an explanatory footnote that outlines the disagreement between the sources instead.
• Lungisile used the word "intelligence", but the letter from Richard seems to question Mafeje's work ethic – sounds like WP:INTERPRETATION to me, or in other words WP:Original research.
• Mafeje letter to Richards – grammar.

The “Mafeje Affair”

• his alma institution – referring to someone's alma mater is commonplace, but this is not a phrasing I'm familiar with. It would probably be better to just state the name of the institution anyway.
• reminding these students that the government had recently loosened the laws to allow them sending money to Israel to support their 1967 war which the government can reverse. – needs copyediting for grammar. The current phrasing says that the government can reverse the war.
• The Council decision angered UCT’s student and lead to protests – verb tense.
• Thursaday – typo.
• The peaceful sit-in – "peaceful" is rather conspicuous here.
• in the form of smoke bombs, false bomb-threat – specify whether this is one threat or several. Indefinite article or plural "s".
• sent to beat the student at the sit-in – should be plural, right?
• in the form of [...] Afrikaans students from Stellenbosch University (fifty kilometres away) were sent [...] – anacoluthon. To be consistent, it should be "being sent".
• the government (namely Prime Minister John Vorster) – why not just say "Vorster", then?
• anti-protestors – the usual term is "counter-protestors".
• they managed to fly the country – flee the country, right?
• Martin Plaut, BBC's Africa Editor and one of the students to participate in the sit-in, affirms that the sit-in was not a failure – MOS:SAID.
• which suggests – to whom?
• UCT Council argued that they were coerced and duressed by the government – why the italics?
• However, Up until 1980 – stray capitalization.
• After white minority rule ended in the 1990s – I would link this to some appropriate article (section) about the end of apartheid.
• In 2008 - after Mafeje passed away - and on – MOS:DASH.
• Mafeje passed away – MOS:EUPHEMISM.
• on the incident 40th anniversary – grammar.

Academic career

• seriously hurt – injured.
• Between 1972 to 1975 – "between" is always followed by "and", never "to".
• Mafeje Chiared – typo and capitalization.
• one of the Queens lords – I'm guessing that should be "Queen's" with an apostrophe.
• one of the first africans – capitalization.
• was founded to promote an Afrocentric approach and eliminated the Western perspective – was it founded to do the former and ended up doing the latter or was it founded to do both? The verb tense use would seem to imply the latter.
• Archie was appointed – odd use of first name.
• Mafeje has served – verb tense.

Research and ideology

• This section is borderline hagiographic. It needs significant editing to comply with WP:NPOV. I would suggest judicious use of WP:INTEXT attribution.
• His work includes a whole series of debates – overly informal phrasing.
• (white) anthropologist – that's a rather conspicuous use of parentheses.

Death

• Mafeje passed away – MOS:EUPHEMISM.
• He is survived by his wife – MOS:SURVIVEDBY.

Honours

• The University of Cape Town posthumously awarded Mafeje an honorary doctorate, established a scholarship in his honour  and renamed the Senate meeting room in the Bremner Builidng, the Mafeje Room. A plaque honouring Mafeje now presides in front of the meeting room that the protestors held throughout their action. – this has already been mentioned in an earlier section.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Plenty of copyediting needed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   WP:WTW is a recurring issue. See also above about layout and the lead.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Not evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Not evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Not evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Not evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See my comments above.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Not evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Not evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL.

@FuzzyMagma: I'm closing this as unsuccessful. The list of issues above is not exhaustive, but a sample of issues I noted while reading through the article. I don't think this can be brought up to WP:Good article standards within a reasonable time frame. I gather that you are fairly new to this, and I don't want to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. To that end, I'll suggest WP:Peer review as a a more appropriate venue to bring this article to at this stage to get feedback and suggestions for improving the article. You may also wish to consult the WP:Guild of Copy Editors. I will add some maintenance templates to the article. TompaDompa (talk) 05:46, 5 January 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.

WP:NPOV issue highlighted during GA assessment

@TompaDompa mentioned that Archie Mafeje#Research and ideology section is borderline hagiographic. It needs significant editing to comply with WP:NPOV. I would suggest judicious use of WP:INTEXT attribution. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The opinion expressed in that section are cited, sometimes by words including referencing Archie's opinion and the other person's opinion, e.g., "Ali A Mazrui on the invention of Africa and postcolonial predicaments: 'My life is one long debate' and Sally Falk (1998). "Archie Mafeje's Prescriptions for the Academic Future" which both respond to Archie

The point about [white] anthropology is Archie's point

Other points were rephrased from available commentary including Hunters' The new black sociologists : historical and contemporary perspectives

Again it is not for me to conclude a winner, but just to summarise the debate.

Depending on your bias you can read and conclude what you want, FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:YESPOV: avoid stating opinions as facts. For instance: the article says that Mafeje's work led to a much-needed examination of the discipline's founding principles. That it was "much-needed" is of course an opinion, but it is presented as a fact here. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 removed FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa would you mind have a look and see if the previous issues that you raised are resolved. I do not want to renominate the article if the problem still there FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I won't have time to do that, I'm afraid. The article has been so extensively rewritten that it would basically necessitate reviewing it all over again. Which is of course a good sign. I wish you good luck with renomination. TompaDompa (talk) 01:57, 3 July 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) 20:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)