Talk:Ukuthwasa

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

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 19:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma Hi! I plan on reviewing this article within the next 2 days. Super interesting topic. Ping me if you have any questions :) sawyer * he/they * talk 03:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Failed good article nomination on March 5, 2024

Upon its review on March 5, 2024, this good article nomination was quick-failed because:

it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria,

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. I am sorry to do this after my delay in starting the review, but I have to quickfail this GAN due to serious issues with sourcing. I'm concerned about the reliability of these sources:

• MAGIC SPELL CASTING ONLINE which my browser won't even let me access, but is clearly not a reliable source
• Best Sangoma And Traditional Healer, which seems like a commercial website advertising these spiritual services, not a reliable secondary source
• this book published by a New Age publishing company
• this book by an alternative medicine practitioner
• Umsamo Institute which should be used as a primary source
• this book, which doesn't seem particularly academic
• the multiple university theses & news articles, which although not unreliable per se, should be used with care

Together, these sources account for a significant portion of the article, especially the parts that talk about the rituals and religious practices themselves. There are a lot of really excellent academic sources used in other parts of the article, which I encourage you to use in place of the above-mentioned questionable sources.

I also have some other suggestions for the article:

• cutting down the lead - MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends around 2 paragraphs for an article of this size
• renaming the "From thwasa to sangoma" section to "process" or something similar
• the article could use more encyclopedic language, and general clarity of language when discussing the topic - Ukuthwasa is a culture-bound syndrome, but the article describes it as a "journey", a "traditional practice", and a "divination practice" among other descriptors. Using more academic sourcing may help clear this up. sawyer * he/they * talk 03:16, 5 March 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.

GA review discussion

Hi @Sawyer-mcdonell, I think it is better to discuss this with you rather than re-nominate the article. As I mentioned on my talk previously, I understand your issues with using words like "journey" and "traditional practice" put I do not think I can change that as I do not want to upheld one view especially after South Africa adopted the Traditional Health Practitioners Act 35 of 2004 but I understand the sentiment. I have used encyclopaedic language, and start each section that takes the South African cultural perspective by "In the culture of traditional healers of Southern Africa, ... " to find a proper language that describes this topic without infringing on other people cultures, that - as I stated earlier - are upheld by the law. I did not present any part of that section as fact (except from the act itself), and would amend any part that convey such a message (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance).

Without the need to be philosophical about how to present (or contest) certain views, I think it will constructive if you can point out where the language can be improved without information suppression.

I also understand the contested sources used for the ritual part but whether the practices is wrong or right, these sources converge when describing the event. The sources that you critiqued are used only in the section that pertain to the cultural aspect of this ritual (or the process). I doubled checked that they are not anywhere else.

Having dedicated a lot of time to write this article, I would appreciate your opinion to improve it before a re-nom. PS: fixed the lead and there is an offline book by Livingstone Mqotsi called A Study of Ukuthwasa I will be reading to expand the text more. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

i still think it does not meet the GA criteria - whether the sources you're using agree with each other on the ritual aspect isn't relevant if they're unreliable, low-quality sources, which they are. you've got a ton of excellent academic sources, and the Mqotsi book seems promising; see how much you can get out of those. in addition to the sourcing, the article still lacks clarity and focus - i have no issue with terms like "traditional practice" as that's a completely neutral term, and "journey" is acceptable if RS are using it, but it makes it more confusing when many different terms are being used. i would also suggest some reorganization - does the "cost" subsection really belong under the "criticism" section? it doesn't mention criticism of ukuthwasa. likewise with the sections under "compatibility with other modern systems". if i were reviewing the article at this stage, it'd still be a QF; i'm not seeing significant improvement (other than the lead being cut down, which is good) in sourcing or organization. however, you're welcome to renominate it and get a fresh opinion. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for detailed answer. Let's see what I will get from Mqotsi's book and find more reliable sources for the ritual section, as I think, it is where we have the QF. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)