Jump to content

Talk:Priscilla Jana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePriscilla Jana has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 7, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Priscilla Jana, a South African human-rights lawyer of Indian descent, was the first woman to hug Nelson Mandela in 13 years of imprisonment on Robben Island?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 5, 2023, and December 5, 2024.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 06:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: hi Ktin, this is an interesting expanded article, RiP Priscilla Jana. comments below Mujinga (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • you could add in the photo of her here?
  • Can you have a look at the image and let me know if it is appropriate to move?
  • one-line paragraph needs sourcing, i added a tag.
  • Removed that one-line paragraph since it is already covered in the paragraph above. Thanks for that catch.
  • it's not a DYK issue but i found the phrase "hanged due to common purpose laws, that made perceived complicity equally punishable as more harsher crimes themself" hard to parse and would recommend rephrasing.
  • Good call. Done + expanded.
  • just to check, are you still under the QPQ requirement?
  • on the hooks, i find ALT0 and ALT1 not particularly intriguing (also ALT1 is over 200 characters), but I think ALT2 is great! the NYT is paywalled, so i'll AGF on the source. so i'm advising drop ALT0 and ALT1, if you want to go further with them the guardian source does back the claims but you'd need to put it on the precise sentences in the article and ALT1 is a bit close to the source with "while his wife Winnie could only see him through a glass door" to "His wife, Winnie, could only see him through a glass panel"
  • Thanks for this one Mujinga. Lots of nice feedback.I have revised the two blurbs and have them below as ALT1.1 and ALT2.1. We can let the selecting Admin choose one from the below. I think 1.1 will score from a recognition and draw interestingness, while I agree 2.1 is compelling too. I made a minor revision on 2.1 to say "every single political prisoner". Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT0.1:... that South African human-rights lawyer of Indian origin Priscilla Jana was the first woman to hug Nelson Mandela in 13 years when he was imprisoned in Robben Island in 1977?
  • ALT1.1:... that South African human-rights lawyer of Indian origin Priscilla Jana was the first woman to hug Nelson Mandela in 13 years, at the Robben Island prison in 1977, while his wife Winnie could only see him through a glass panel?
  • ALT2.1:... that South African human-rights lawyer of Indian origin Priscilla Jana had at one point represented every single political prisoner at Robben Island?
  • Hi Ktin, thanks for the new hooks. ALT1.1 is still too long, it needs to be under 200 characters, I would suggest taking out the Winnie phrase since it's quite close to the source, you can use the "Character count" link to check it. That may then requite adding the ref to the relevant sentence on the article. ALT2.1 is improved and good to go. Mujinga (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ktin great, now i just need the citation on the relevant sentence for ALT0.1 and then i can approve ALT0.1 and ALT2.1 (probably for next time it'll be easier just to have ALT0, ALT1, ALT2, ALT3 and so on) Mujinga (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Images are not my specialty, I would say add the pic here if you want and can make a note to get more advice about it. Otherwise there's no need. Mujinga (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mujinga:. Yup, the editor who helped with the loading of the image is quite a diligent editor, so, I expect all things to be good. But, in the recent past I have been hit by an overzealous editor who sent me down an OTRS rabbit-hole that I am still navigating. So, I am ok to let this pass. Ktin (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary for posting-Admin: Please choose between ALT0.1 and ALT2.1 hooks. Either is fine. Ktin (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
now ready for DYK, ALT0.1 and ALT2.1 both approved, using the Guardian and NYT links respectively. Mujinga (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
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]


Template

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. 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

[edit]
  • 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 info@sahistory.org.za and checking about their policy as it regards this specific image.

Copyvio

[edit]

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

Prose

[edit]

Generally good and MoS compliant. MOS:PARA suggests "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text" so some of them could be added to the preceding or following paragraph. Some comments:

Lead

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]
  • 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

Early years

[edit]
  • "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

[edit]
  • 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
  • "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

[edit]
  • "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

[edit]
  • 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

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

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

Broadness

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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 MOS:LEAD and I would expect the lead to summarise the article. MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests one or two paragraphs, and I'd say two would be good, now we are on one and a half. There are still several one-line paragraphs and I'd still like to know what area she represented as MP. My question re broadness has been answered by the addition of more sources, that's great! Two extra wikilink suggestions would be Soweto on first mention and Black going to Ethnic groups in South Africa or perhaps Bantu peoples of South Africa whichever is more appropriate. Mujinga (talk) 11:47, 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]
  • 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

[edit]

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 File:Priscilla Jana.jpeg and there was a question about the fair use rationale. Innisfree987 asked at several places, including Wikipedia:Help_desk#Fair_use_rationale (no response), Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Check_an_image_for_a_GA_review? and Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Advice_on_image_licensing. There was no response on the helpdesk and at Women in Red people thought the rationale as good. At GAN, the discussion resulted in the image being reviewed and then led to various other debates such as "Images of recently deceased individuals" at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content about the application of WP:NFCI. There may have been a rule of thumb about not using free use images of deceased people for six months but I don't see that actually stated in the guidelines and there clearly has been attempt to find other images here. Mujinga (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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, Mujinga. As Innisfree987 notes, the article is much the richer because of your precise, targeted, and actionable feedback. I am new to the 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]

Recent revert

[edit]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Priscilla_Jana&oldid=1261641198"