Talk:Mafeje affair/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 10:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

References

Spotchecks

Pix

• 1 File:Protests UCT 1968 Jameson hall.jpg - satisfies South African copyright requirements but not I think US copyright per "A South African work that is in the public domain in South Africa according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in South Africa in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S.". This pic was not in public domain in South Africa in 1996. Not sure what copyright specialcollections.uct.ac.za holds and the given author "The Librarian, Special Collections, University of Cape Town" is unlikely
• 2 File:Archie Mafeje Tyler Morning Telegraph.webp - nominated for deletion Feb 2023, rationale = "Why should this newspaper-content be PD-South-Afrika? I see none of the mentioned terms met"
• 3 File:Protests_UCT_1968.jpg - same issue as image1
• 4 File:Protests UCT 1968 sit in.jpg - same issue as image1, plus www.news.uct.ac.za is copyright of UCT
• 5 File:Counter-protestors_on_22_August_1968_during_the_Mafeje_affair_02.tif - same issue as image1, also i'm not sure what copyright restrictions the source site https://uct1968sitin.wordpress.com/ is using

Overview

• I'll take this on for review Mujinga (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've hit WP:GAFAIL 1 and 2 whilst checking the pix, I'll stop to discuss. Mujinga (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  I understand your concern. I am confused too as the PD-tag is not consistent with the law at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Africa .. removed picture no. 2 in your list FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga forgot to tag you FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  OK I'm going to quickfail this article then. The problem is summarised in the page you linked: "Note that any work originating in South Africa must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both South Africa and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons". These images are useable on wikipedia by South African copyright law, but not unfortunately under US law. Pictures can be a pain so I'm sorry for that, good luck with the article in future. Mujinga (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga ok images removed FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Images add to the articles but I think even without images, the article still have the merits to stand as a good article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga not sure why you quick failed the article. You mentioned 1 and 2 criteris of WP:GAFAIL but mainly talked about 2 and even 2 mainly tallks about text not images. I wonder if I can challenge your call as being a little bit "trigger happy" .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sure happy to explain:

  "1 It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" - this article was a long way from meeting criterion 6a "media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content"

  "2 It contains copyright violations" - these images are copyright violations, as explained.

  I don't think I was trigger happy, I could have immediately failed this article but since I wanted to give you the chance to respond I left it for two days. Sadly after your response the article was still a quickfail. Mujinga (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga thanks for the detailed answer. Not sure if you can still review the article (since I removed the images, I can also cite some instances when other reviewers gave that leeway especially when things was not clear especially as this problem with license under discussion was not flagged as an issue on Wikipedia commons, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mafeje Affair, Varsity Excerpt 2.jpg). It’s a shame for the work to go unreviewed, especially given that you already have 3 featured articles which means your comments will really help improving this article. I will leave it to you FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:55, 27 April 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.