Talk:Archie Mafeje/GA1

GA Review
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.
 * 1) 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&mdash;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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * See my comments above.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL.

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)