Talk:Priscilla Jana

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Priscilla Jana/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• review to come Mujinga (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Good Article review progress box WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Images

• There's one image on the article and it's copyright status is not 100% known, owing to vagueness in the copyright policy of the website it came from, as discussed on the DYK nom, where I said: "On the photo, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Devikarani_Priscilla_Jana.jpg hmm yes the license appears to be good, since the website it is taken from says on its copyright policy page that it either licenses its own pix as creative commons or credits the copyright holder which suggests in the absence of a credit the sahistory is releasing the pic, however the policy also says "We always try to supply owner details and obtain permission from these owners, but in some cases we have not been able to trace some rights owners" so that seems a bit vague". The GA criteria say "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions."

The pic is relevant, there's just a question over whether it is genuinely able to be licensed under creative commons, and I would suggest this can be resolved by emailing [email protected] and checking about their policy as it regards this specific image.

Copyvio

Checked on earwig, no probs, some high percentages based on quotes

Prose

Generally good and MoS compliant.

Lead

• will return to this last, prob could be expanded a bit and everything in lead should be cited below
• AAM members? As the AAM article says: "This article is about the British organisation. For opposition to apartheid from within South Africa, see Internal resistance to apartheid."

 Done

• "south africa government" wikilink

 Done Ktin (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

• text says "She first joined the Pietermaritzburg Girls' High School, where she is noted to have organized a walkout in support of starving potato farmers, in 1958", source says "In 1958, as a teenager at Pietermaritzburg girls’ high school, she rallied her classmates to join her in a potato boycott, siding with starving farm workers" so im wondering was it a walkout and were they potato farmers?

 Done Ktin (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " went onto go to India" reads awkwardly

 Done Ktin (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ",but," unnecessary second comma

 Done Ktin (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AAM again, same comment as above

 Done Ktin (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Writing in her memoir," suggests you will quote the book, but the only source is NYT which is paywalled for me, so i want to check the direct quotes came from the NYT article

• That is accurate, the text in quotes is directly quoted from NYT which quotes the book. Ktin (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• brilliant, thanks for double-checking! Mujinga (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

• "Mandela, while masking them with her joking and teasing actions" for me something like "while joking and teasing" is fine

 Done Ktin (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Terrorism act" can this be wikilinked or identified by year?

 Done Ktin (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• wl Solomon Mahlangu first time round

 Done Ktin (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "themself" - this sentence isn't backed by Guardian so must be backed by NYT? it's not clear to me what "common purpose" means and i'd say something like for "that judged complicity harshly" for "that made perceived complicity equally punishable as more harsher crimes themself".

 Done; Ktin (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Apartheid

• first sentence has yahoonews link twice. could alphabetize list

 Done; Alphabetized based on last name.

• Anti-Apartheid movement, per comment above

 Done Ktin (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "when the activist client" here needs rewriting to the source and Popo Molofe is male, the child was left by the mother

 Done Good catch. Ktin (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "custody in 1977. the case" either needs to be "The" or something got erased accidentally
• "She is noted to have carried AK-47s", wl AK47, and maybe start the sentence "For example" or give other examples

 Partly done Edited this; not fully convinced with my wording. Please feel free to suggest different. Ktin (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rephrased version is working for me! Mujinga (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• in terms of broadness this section could be expanded, eg some more cases

• Will definitely look. Ktin (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "She was targeted by state agents in the mid 1980s, with her home bombed, car tires slashed and she arrested" is a bit too close to source "The mid 1980s saw Jana targeted by state agents. Her home was fire-bombed, her car tyres slashed and she was arrested."

 Done Ktin (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Later years

• "With democracy having been ushered" needs to be ushered in, maybe change to "the onset of" or similar

 Done Ktin (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "member of parliament" - more please seems important, like wikilink, where was she MP for example, was she praised/hated etc

this is expanded which is great, I'd still like to know where she was MP for and also i notice in the lead it's "Member of Parliament" and here "member of parliament" so that should be standardised Mujinga (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

• wl pretoria

 Done Ktin (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "movement stated," → "movement, stated"

 Done Ktin (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Book

• "Mandela : the" → "Mandela: The" whilst cheekily admitting I introduced the error!

 Done Ktin (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness

Jana's obituaries (RiP) have provided the overview for this article to be expanded but for broad coverage we can also look to (google) books and (google) scholar articles for some extra information on her career and some more of her cases in addition to Biko.  Done Ktin (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is an interesting read and is not far off being a Good Article, but needs a bit of work, I've made some comments above. I'll put it on hold for a week and see how far we get. Mujinga (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Innisfree987 who created the page in case they want to be involved. Mujinga (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, thanks for the note and the review and thank you for all the hard work Ktin. I’ll try to take a closer look at all soon. The one item I was able to examine was the permissions for the photograph and I do agree it’s a little dodgy. I am dealing with a similar issue at the DYK for Faith Smith, but the main difference here is that (if I know my rules, big if!) Jana’s passing means we could make a fair use claim for an image, it just needs to be posted as such. And that would widen images to choose from. So if the email contact can’t confirm they secured the photographer’s permission, that’s another option. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Mujinga: for the comments. Will work on them iteratively. Nice to see you here @Innisfree987: and thanks for seeding this article! Feel free to jump in with your edits as and when your time permits. I have never had good luck with images. Fingers crossed on this one. Let's see. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Innisfree987:, @Mujinga: -- do either of you have some tips on offline reach out to an organization such as SAH in this case? Particularly, I am concerned about privacy / confidentiality management. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktin, definitely understand. I have a dedicated email address for my WP account and I think it’s fine to say, “Hi I’m Wikipedia editor Ktin and I’m writing to inquire about...” Odds are they will just assume it’s a first name and if you link to the entry, they should see you as legit. If they do have the right permission for the photo, best would be if they updated their link to indicate that, but they could also email a copy of the release to OTRS.
If this seems too much trouble, do consider the fair use option. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mujinga: -- Firstly, thanks a ton for the detailed and constructive feedback. Covered the feedback points including broadening the coverage from other sources. Went over newspaper archives from the 1980s, and I must admit it was an intense experience. That said, I think we should have some additional details now. They key missing piece at this time is a gameplan on the image front. Please can you help have a look and let me know if you see anything else pending at this time. Ktin (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing review

Thanks Ktin and Innisfree987 for all the work so far. To continue the review, yes first thing outstanding is the image question, I have no further suggestion there, I'm happy to wait to see what SAH have to say. Of course if you want to avoid this issue, you could either remove the image or find another one. The article is currently on hold until Friday, since we are in good communication I have no probs with extending that longer if necessary. I also want to say I expected the DYK to be approved by the time the GA started, but that hasn't happened. I think it is OK for the two processes to be running concurrently, but perhaps not optimal since the DYK nom might throw up other concerns. In any case, I would like the DYK to be approved (not posted) by the time I make this a GA.

For other things outstanding, as I said above I'll come to the lead last since it's always good to return to that after working on everything else. However, if you do want to work on it in the meantime, it's always good to read

• Thanks much Mujinga. We will work on these edits and will share updates iteratively.Ktin (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Image finalization

 Done; Thanks in significant part to Innisfree987 Ktin (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DYK finalization

Pending. But, my thinking is there is no action from our end. Thoughts? Ktin (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, no action needed for DYK unless promoting editor pings with concerns. But I also have one waiting that was approved before this one, so I think they are just backlogged. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lede revisions

 Done Ktin (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• MP constituency

''Pending. Finding it very hard to find. Throwing in the towel here. Searched extensively. What should be a pretty easy thing to find, turned out to by way more difficult :( Ktin (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I was thinking what an indictment of our South African coverage it is that Wikipedia does not have an easy-to-access listing—but we do have some very old web archives linked, and voilà! There could be more searchable info too, now that we have a name, but at minimum there’s that. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree987, This is awesome! Ktin (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nice one, sorry i didn't think it would be so hard! Mujinga (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilinking

 Done. Ktin (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ready. @Mujinga:, with the above changes, we are ready for your attention at your convenience. Feel pretty good about this one. Nice teamwork Innisfree987. Ktin (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! Will take a look later today or tomorrow. Mujinga (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• wow this is looking very good now, I'll go through things again but I think the only thing left for me to check is the new image. Mujinga (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• lead is improved, I'll just note Member of Parliament is capitalised in lead but not in article Mujinga (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. Fixed this in the body. If I need to change to lower case at both places, let me know. Ktin (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• On the image i am missing what happened as regards to what happened with the old image, but I suppose that doesn't matter. This one is claimed under fair use, so then a fair use rationale for this specific article needs to be added at File:Priscilla_Jana.jpeg using Template:Non-free use rationale along the same lines as the rationales at File:NorthernBankNI20.jpg. This is the relevant guideline Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Mujinga (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Innisfree987, whenever you get a moment, please can you take this one. I don't want to introduce an error. Thanks much. Ktin (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure thing and thanks Mujinga, I’d appreciate your expert help on this. First to clarify about what happened: I found the source details for other photographer who has not actually CC licensed it even though an org used it alongside their own CC-licensed materials. The file is nominated for deletion at the Commons now. I think this matters because we can’t claim fair use if there’s a free image. As for the rationale, I did see that request on the file page, but it confused me because I have uploaded fair use images few times now and I thought all the details entered in the process and listed under “Summary” were the rationale. Should I enter it all again? I don’t want it to seem like the file is used twice which likely wouldn’t fly... Innisfree987 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it maybe the case that the file has a rationale but an admin/patroller just hasn’t been by to tick the “|image has rationale=yes” box yet? Innisfree987 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Innisfree987 I cannot claim to be an expert on image use but in my opinion what needs to be done is for you to fill in Template:Non-free use rationale and insert it on the page at File:Priscilla Jana.jpeg. This is what "Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article" is requesting. To expand on my example, I wanted to use File:NorthernBankNI20.jpg at Northern Bank robbery so i filled in the template and you can see it at "Non-free media information and use rationale for Northern Bank robbery", alongside "Non-free media information and use rationale for Danske Bank (Northern Ireland)" and "Non-free media information and use rationale for Banknotes of Northern Ireland". In fact in this case Template:Non-free use rationale biog is even better ... good luck! Mujinga (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, ok I’ll query at the help desk because I just did a trial run using such a template with a book cover and it doesn’t look right at all—the “Media data and Non-free use rationale” section already on the Jana file looks much more like your bank example. I am suspecting it just hasn’t been patrolled yet but I will see if I can get confirmation. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes I see what you mean, sorry for muddying the waters! Mujinga (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Worth asking the help desk but I appear to have stumped them, which to me is a sign we’re in good shape—usually people jump on copyright errors pretty quickly.Innisfree987 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this Innisfree987 - I had another look at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and I would say this sentence "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the media file is used in an article. The name of the article the media file is used in must be included in the rationale." means that you should indeed provide a separate rationale for the usage on Priscilla Jana. I'm seeing the process as first of all giving a fair use rationale for uploading the image, then second a fair use rationale for use on an article (even if in this specific case it does seem a bit like duplication). Anyway, I'm happy to wait to see if we get a helpdesk answer, there also always Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations which can be a helpful place to ask questions. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, right so to upload any fair use image, you have to specify which article it will be shown in, as Wikiapedia deletes unused images (can’t claim fair use if you're not using them.) If you look again at the license please, you’ll see the rationale already specified that this is the entry it will be used in, how exactly it will be used here (“for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of their biographical article”), etc. I really don’t think they want that repeated but I can ask again at GAN, since no one is answer ing at Help Desk.Innisfree987 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, GAN and Women in Red both confirm the image only hadn’t been patrolled, rather than needing an additional rationale; but, there is now a debate about a different aspect at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Advice_on_image_licensing for the latest I will let everyone read for themselves and then we can discuss how to proceed. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile here were the opinions when I queried Women in Red: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Check_an_image_for_a_GA_review?. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree987, thanks so much for chasing down all these conversations through the day! Mujinga, please advise on the next steps. Seems like we should be good, but, want to ensure that my read of these threads are accurate. Ktin (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is my hope! As an FYI, I’ve just had a DYK hook promoted and the secondary linked entries need my attention to bring them up to snuff before the hook goes live on Main Page on December 11. So I’ve probably done as much as I can do on the image in the near-term. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok continuing again, it's just the image now and i'll put my comments below Mujinga (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Innisfree987 and Ktin, nearly there now, please see my comments above. Mujinga (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, thank you for all your work! The entry is much better for it. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga: -- totally agree with @Innisfree987:'s words. Thanks so much. Really appreciate it. Not sure if it is appropriate to ask here, but, I already have a next article in mind to ask your review on :) Ktin (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi i'll continue the review again - thanks for asking about another review, but as you can see these things take time and my first love is content creation, so I'll leave it for another reviewer, but would be happy to collaborate again in future Mujinga (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, I totally understand. Definitely appreciate it. Thanks much. Ktin (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments

So the article is now looking good, the lead is expanded. The only thing left is the image. So the original image was changed for a new one

The image itself is from http://www.dirco.gov.za/dircoenewsletter/newsflash449-15-10-2020.html, sourced to https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/condolences-human-rights-lawyer-priscilla-jana where the story at has no image. Following the GA criteria, I am satisfied a valid fair use rationale has been given for use of the image. Hopefully in time a free image can be used instead. Perhaps the DYK being on the frontpage will help with that process. Mujinga (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktin and Innisfree987 congratulations on the good article about Priscilla Jana, RIP. It was fun working with you, it's nice when multiple people take an interest and the article definitely improves. All the best, Mujinga (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me it makes sense to list this article at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Law in the "Lawyers, judges and legal academics" section rather than at World history, if you disagree please do feel free to move it. Mujinga (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this thorough and meticulous review,

WP:GAN process. So, will definitely lean on you and Innisfree987. I had initially thought World History, only because of the role that Priscilla Jana had played in a historical movement of our times. I am assuming the article can not be listed at two locations. Innisfree987 when you get a moment, please do let us know of your thoughts as well. Regards. Ktin (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes it can only be listed once and you could definitely argue for it being at World history in "Historical figures: other" or "African history". See what you think, all the best! Mujinga (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, makes sense. Let's go with World History >> African History, if that is alright. Do either Innisfree987 or I, have to do something to list the article there? Ktin (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

African history works for me (and I see her there now, yay!) and thank you both! It’s wonderful to bring such a worthy topic up to GA-quality coverage. It’s been a pleasure to collaborate with you both to that end! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ktin, I wanted to check in about the revert of this edit—to me it seems like the IP’s edit summary is correct about the misdirected wikilink to a living person (Popo Molefe) when the person described in the entry is long deceased. Am I mistaken? Sorry for the trouble if so! Innisfree987 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this one through last night. Let me dig a little deeper later tonight. Ktin (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Innisfree987 I think I had one point wrong. Deleted that sentence. Reintroduced the Wikilink. Source:[1] Ktin (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ktin, yeah this one is a headscratcher since the entry for him only discusses a different wife...but I think you have it right; it seems Albertina was born circa 1987 so he is probably not the person killed in 1983. Thanks for sorting this all out! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you and the IP editor! I made that revert and that thought kept plaguing me all night, and then saw your message in the morning! Served as the right and much needed push. I think we now have it alright, but, will dig furthermore over the weekend. Ktin (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]