Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evelyn Mase/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 July 2020 [1].

Evelyn Mase edit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This fairly short article is about Nelson Mandela's first wife. I got the Mandela article through the FAC process several years ago and it would be good if this article, currently a GA, could join it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

This is a very complete looking article, though as a proviso to the following comments I know nothing about this lady, and have only a broad familiarity with South African history.

  • "Moving to Johannesburg to train as a nurse, it was there she met and married Mandela." - bit over-complex (how about something like "She met Mandela after moving to Johannesburg to train as a nurse"?)
  • My only concern about this change is that it reverses the chronology, which might make things a little less clear for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know when Mase and Mandela first met?
  • Unfortunately not, but if said information ever surfaces (perhaps unlikely) then it would certainly make for a worthwhile addition to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The biographer David James Smith later argued that Mandela's presentation here was "not quite the whole story"." - what does Smith say was missing?
  • Smith argues that the account Mandela provides in his autobiography overlooks his own adultery at this period by emphasising the idea that his disagreement with his wife was primarily ideological. At present, I've used the Smith quote at the end of this article to help lead onto the next paragraph, which discusses the adultery. I you think it is just causing confusion, however, then it could be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest removing if it's discussed elsewhere, as this is confusing. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been so as not to damage the heroic reputation he had at this time" - bit complex
  • I've changed this to "may have been to avoid damaging his heroic reputation." Do you think that that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not fond of describing Mase's life after she and Mandela's wedding ended as merely her "Later life" - it suggests she was defined by who she was married to.
  • I can see your point here, but I'm not sure whether any of the obvious alternatives would be preferable. Something like "Life after Mandela" would replicate the same problem. Anyone out there have any suggestions on this count? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a heading like that would be much better - Something like "post-divorce" is another possibility. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Mase travelled there to meet with him, but Mandela refused to see her" - do we know why? Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughts, Nick-D! I appreciate you taking the time to read through the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Mandela_e_Evelyn_1944.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Unfortunately, that's not clear. The image appears in various biographies of Mandela, but I do not know what was its first appearance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so that's a potential problem since the URAA tag partially relies on publication date. What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay on this. I've done some delving, and I've not been able to find any published version of this image prior to David James Smith's 2011 book Young Mandela. That being the case, I don't think we can continue to use this image under a URAA tag. I've replaced the tags with a non-free tag attached to a slightly different version of the image, which I have uploaded locally at Wikipedia (File:Nelson Mandela and Evelyn Mase.jpg). Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nelson_Mandela,_2000_(5).jpg: as per the Flickr tag this should include more specific copyright tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed this image from the template at the bottom of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I've made some copyedits; please revert anything you don't agree with.

  • She initially filed for divorce, but withdrew this action: "this action" is a bit stilted. I don't know the right legal term, but could this be changed to something like "but later withdrew the petition" or "did not go through with the legal proceedings"? Similarly did not contest this, in the next sentence, isn't as smooth as it could be; how about "In 1958, Mandela, who was hoping to marry Winnie Mandela, obtained an uncontested divorse from Mase"?
  • I've gone with "did not go through with the legal proceedings" and have made the latter change that you propose too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was attended by Mandela, Winnie, and Mandela's third wife, Graça Machel: I can't find it, but I think somewhere in the MoS it's discouraged to speak of women using their first names only, as it can be regarded as demeaning. Could we make this "was attended by Nelson and Winnie Mandela, and..."?
  • This is a tricky one; I've changed it to "Winnie Madikizela-Mandela" but that does look a bit clunky and repetitive given that we already give her full name in the paragraph above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a man with whom he went to school: how about just "schoolmate"?
  • they were also related, with their respective mothers being sisters: seems easier to say they were cousins than "related". Perhaps "they were cousins, as their mothers were sisters"?
  • It would be nice to avoid having some members of Mase's family starting two consecutive sentences. How about joining them with a comma and making the second one "and some of them"?
  • I've merged the two sentences with a semi-colon and start the second part with "moreover, some blamed Winnie". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. The article is in good shape and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to offer these comments, Mike! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The fixes look good. I agree Winnie’s full name looks a little clunky but I don’t see a better solution. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I've added this to the urgents list to hopefully drum up some more reviews. It also needs a source review, it appears? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by David Fuchs edit

  • Her father, a mineworker, died when she was a child, leaving his second wife and their six children,[2] three of whom died in infancy.—this is a bit unclear I think because it's trying to sandwich together two different facts. I assume not all the children died after Evelyn was born and after the father. Might want to split up the details about them having six kids, three of whom died, and then explain the father died when she was a child.
  • I've now split this up into multiple sentences along the lines you recommend. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1939, Evelyn joined her brother and Sisulu in Johannesburg. I don't think you need the "in Johannesburg" bit since the previous paragraph ended explaining that.
  • She trained as a nurse in the city's non-European hospital at Hillbrow, fulfilling the wishes of her late mother. What was her mother's wish? That she be a nurse, or that she work at the non-European hospital?
  • To be a nurse, I believe. I shall make this clearer in the text by changing the sentence to the following: "She trained as a nurse in the city's non-European hospital at Hillbrow, fulfilling the wishes of her late mother that she would enter that profession." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Sisulus moved to a larger house at 7372 Orlando West—It's kind of weird you give the address the people who are not the subject of the biography moved to, but we have no idea where the house that is relevant was. The new address makes much more sense in the following sentence; alternatively, I don't see why it's really necessary to mention they gave the house to Sam when it's not relevant to the following passages.
  • I don't think that the address house which Sam Mase took over is actually known publicly; if it were, it would definitely be worth including it. I agree with your point that the second address, 7372 Orlando West, is better mentioned in the second sentence than the first here, so have moved it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, David! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be a shame to lose the only image of the article subject, but we need publishing info for File:Mandela e Evelyn 1944.jpg to verify it is in fact PD, and right now it's missing that.
  • Sources look okay. I did a NYPL and Google Books search for the subject and found some more recent scholarship, but it appeared much of them relied on sources presented in this article, so I don't think there's much evidence anything is missing. I did a spot-check to statements attributed to current refs 2, 11, 18, 34, 45, 51, 72, 75, 76, and didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or inaccuracies; I don't have access to the print sources used besides Meredith and Sampson but don't see any issues with what I can. I would say it would be preferable to split references in some cases to make it clearer which source exactly is covering what part of the statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, Midnightblueowl, where are we at now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the only thing we have to sort out is where the lede image was first published. I'm having a bit of trouble with that and wondering if the image should be changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a verifiable free image, I would definitely swap it. Otherwise, you can just remove this one and work on finding one without the deadline of FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there is a verifiable free image so I've added a local version of the same image with a non-free tag. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rationale could use some elaboration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded on it, adding additional detail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale looks much better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri edit

Hi, looking at the article my first thought was that a lot of it is based on Mandela's autobiography, a primary source. I'm happy to give a full review, but first I'd like hear your thoughts on this. According to WP:OR: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". I'm concerned that the extent of the reliance might be too great.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the article does cite Mandela's autobiography 34 times, but in 26 of those instances it is used alongside other, secondary sources. Of those seven instances where Mandela's autobiography is the only citation, four are used to cite direct quotations from Mandela. In the three other examples, Mandela's autobiography is specifying particular facts that I don't think are contentious. In addition, it might be worth noting that we also use Mandela's autobiography as a source in the Nelson Mandela article, which has been FA-rated for several years now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed one of the sentences that relies solely on Mandela's autobiography, which takes the overall total down to six. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the cases where it's used alongside other sources, are those sources sufficient to verify the claims made? Eg if you removed the bio (which, to be clear, I'm not requesting), would all of that material still be appropriately cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. Let me double check. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked and yes, everything that appeared in Mandela's autobiography was also in other cited sources in this instance. The only issue I encountered was the statement that Mase came from a Xhosa family; it is implied by both Mandela's autobiography and other sources but is not stated explicitly, so I have removed this statement from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Mandela's autobiography is a very prominent book, it will have received a lot of attention from his biographers (many of whose bios of Mandela are prominent in their own right), historians, people who knew the couple and other relevant experts. Unless they've raised concerns with the relevant material or the book more broadly, this should be an OK source if used carefully, which seems to have been the case here. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note (2) edit

Hard to believe a month has gone by since I last stopped by here. There's been some further commentary but not consensus to promote. I can wait another 24 hours or so to see if David and Carabinieri are satisfied the criteria are met but after that we'll have to call it a day for this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We now have three statements in support of promotion; let's just see what Carabinieri thinks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri seems to have been editing sporadically the past few weeks; given all the responses to those concerns I feel comfortable enough to promote, subject to my own once-over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Evelyn_Mase/archive1&oldid=970551439"