Talk:Maravi

Untitled

The contention of an earlier contributor (19 December 2014) that 'the basis of Chewa is Sotho' in particular the Sepedi dialect of Northern Sotho cannot be justified. It can be seen from the numbers, for example (Sepedi: tee, pedi, tharo, nne, hlano = Chewa: -modzi -wiri -tatu -nayi -sano) that the two languages are related only very distantly. His contention that the Maravi Empire was founded by a Sotho monarchy also seems to be without any historical foundation.Kanjuzi (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maravi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060109071410/http://www.axisgallery.com/exhibitions/maravi/ to http://www.axisgallery.com/exhibitions/maravi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits

@Tumbuka Arch:, PRE-COLONIAL STATES OF CENTRAL MALAŴI: TOWARDS A RECONSTRUCTION OF THEIR HISTORY (1988) page 6 says The maravi expanded northwards into Tumbuka and Tonga country during the reign of Mphunga (1555-1580). Page 12 says

There was also considerable outward movement of Maravi leaders and their followers from the Kalonga's kingdom, northwards into Tumbuka and Tonga areas. The leaders involved here included Chulu, Kaluluma, Kanyenda and Kabunduli. Chulu and Kaluluma, for example, migrated into the southern Tumbuka area called Chimaliro. Here, they claim to have encountered a people amongst whom there was little political or military co-operation. Thus, it was relatively easy for the immigrants to overawe the local inhabitants and to impose the institution of territorial chieftainship on them.(35) Kanyenda and Kabunduli, on the other hand, migrated into Tongaland. There, Kabunduli is said to have occupied land that was rich in resources so that in subsequent periods he was followed by several other immigrants from the Maravi heartland, such as the Kapunda Banda.(36)

. I don't think it means they ruled over all of Tumbuka and Tonga lands, just part of it.

The map in the infobox is very similar to the map at page 199 of this except the infobox one shows area of influence as directly controlled. The map from the book doesn't show the Maravi ruling over part of northern Malawi where the Tumbuka and Tonga were, though bizarrely the map on page 57 shows expansion further north. I can put something in the caption saying the lands to the east were under Maravi influence rather than directly controlled? Uticulo appears to have been a Makua settlement Kowal2701 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The infobox map is from page 69 of this Kowal2701 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 True. The kingdom may have stretched to reach other sides of other kingdoms.

Putting a caption would give a clue. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Complicating things, the first source mentioned says

Culturally, a considerable synthesis of Maravi and Makua customs and traditions took place, particularly in what is now Quelimane district.(24) As a result, by the beginning of the 17th Century, the Lundu controlled a vast area north of the lower Zambezi, from the Lower Shire in the west to within reach of the Indian Ocean in the east. Not only was he then recognised as "the second most powerful person in the empire of Maravi (after the Kalonga)", but his warriors periodically descended on the Makua part of the coast to raid Portuguese settlements there.(25

and that Makua and Lolo headmen were made vassals. Since the whole state was made up of tributaries, I'm not sure there's much wrong with how the infobox map depicts it, but I'll put that the state was made up tributaries Kowal2701 (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maravi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kowal2701 (talk · contribs) 16:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 22:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'll take this one. It's great to see someone writing an article covering a large topic that is (judging from the sheer number of red links) quite underrepresented on Wikipedia. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  Hi Vigilantcosmicpenguin, thank you so much for taking this on! Kowal2701 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This is a concisely written broad-topic article. Phrasing clearly describes concepts that are not obvious to readers.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section summarizes the key points. Layout is typical for this type of article. No issues with editorializing, official titles, or other WTW policies.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All citations are to academic publications.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All phrasing matches what can be understood from the sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 4.8%.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article covers the most important events in the polity's history, as well as its government, economy, and society.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article focuses on the Maravi empire.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article represents the consensus among historians and does not favor any specific historian's viewpoints. It also acknowledges the existence of non-historical viewpoints.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable with no content-related reverts recently.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Article has two images, which are free.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images are directly relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations on your first GA!

Initial comments

• The list of rulers is confusingly formatted. I would suggest changing it to a table, with columns indicating their positions in each of the two lists, and an explanatory paragraph before the table.

The first list is the "historical" list, the second just documents the tradition of the CRE. I've removed the second one (as it's more suitable for Chewa Royal Establishment if/when that's created) and made the first a table

• I would suggest adding at least a sentence mentioning that there is a different list used by the royal family. Even if it's not historical, it's still important enough to mention. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Done

• Since the "Present day" subsection is only one paragraph, I don't think it needs a separate heading.

Done

• There are some issues with the prose, which is unclear in some places. I will do some copyediting to fix some grammar and phrasing issues myself, but I will also note some of these issues as I read through each section.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Lead section

• The infobox uses the name "Maravi Empire", but this is not used elsewhere. The lead sentence instead refers to it as the "Maravi polity". Can you explain how reliable sources call it?

Sources most often use "Maravi empire", although that appears to mostly be used for the 17th century. See ngrams. Juwayeyi says Since much of that land had originally belonged to other rulers, the term ‘empire’ and the title ‘Emperor’ were appropriate.

• I've boldly changed the lead sentence to use the phrase "Maravi empire", as I think the word "empire" is more understandable than "polity". — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence is still the same? Do you mean swapping "empire" and "polity"? I'm unsure whether we'd bold Maravi empire, or just have Maravi empire. The former seems better but contradicts MOS:B a little, maybe an WP:IAR situation Kowal2701 (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Whoops, I said I was going to do it and then didn't. I'm bolding the term "Maravi empire" as I think it makes sense to use the same term in the first sentence as in the infobox. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Think I'm gonna put replace the second "empire" w polity to reduce redundancy

• The phrase "greatest extent" is unverified in the body (though it is implied).

Removed

• Languages in the infobox are unsourced.

Can only verify Chichewa unfortunately, so removed the others. Sources mention various groups as having been subjects, but don't explicitly mention languages

• The religion is also unsourced, although the religion is described in the article body. I would suggest adding an explicit statement that it was the Chewa religion.

Added a sentence, was remarkably difficult to source

• It feels strange for the infobox to list currencies that are not standardized systems. Do other articles do this?

Cowries is a common sight, although currency is defined as standardised rather than any mediums of exchange, so I've removed it

• Alright, I'll let you decide whether or not to include it. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Kalonga Muzura conquers Lundu Looks like Lundu is the name of a person, not a place, so it feels wrong to phrase it like this.

Changed to "Lundu's polity"

• Katanga, DR Congo is imprecise per WP:MODERNPLACENAME

I'm not sure what to do here as there isn't a present-day equivalent since it was broken up in 2015. Upemba depression is what the source means, but that'd probably come under OR. There's still loads of post-2015 sources using Katanga to refer to a region, ideally it'd point to Katanga (region), but that'd be a redundant fork of the province. I can change it to a redirect

• What I mean is, it's technically wrong to say it occurred in "Katanga, DR Congo", because there was no such thing as DR Congo back then. I would suggest just saying "Katanga", or perhaps "Katanga, a region to the west". — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Mb, replaced "DR Congo" with "(a region to the north-west)"

• notable of these were is WP:PUFFERY

Changed to "this included"

• In the phrase Kaphiti and Lundu, and Nyangu and Undi, the separation into two does not make sense to readers. Perhaps split it into two sentences to indicate that Kaphiti and Lundu happened first, then Nyangu and Undi later.

Rewrote a bit

• The current phrasing mentions expansion via Kalonga's relatives, and then implies that Kaphiti and Lundu were an example of this. However, the history section says that Kaphiti and Lundu left before this system of expansion is mentioned. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Mb, rewrote again

• The mention of the Zimba is unclear and provides no context to readers.

Rewrote a bit

• The sentence is still unclear. It implies that Muzura was allied with the Zimba, but the body only mentions Lundu being allied with them. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Removed second mention

• relative anarchy is not quite verified in the body.

Changed to "disintegration"

• Remove the phrase In the present day

Removed

• I would suggest removing the statement about perpetual kinship as the definition is a bit too much detail for the lead.

Removed

• Perhaps add a statement about the economy.

Added two sentences, one on agriculture, one on trade

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Name

• This section looks good.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

History

• Throughout this section, I'm a little confused by names like Kaphiti, Lundu, and Undi. They are used as names of individuals, but then used again describing much later events, implying that they are titles.

Because of perpetual kingship they're somewhere in between titles and individuals. Roughly put, successors "became" their predecessors, taking on their relationships and duties. The reason there's nothing explaining what perpetual titles are is because the only sources I could find discussing it are on the Lunda Empire (it's only found groups that stayed in or migrated out of Katanga), but I'll add a mention of perpetual titles to the lead with a note explaining.

@Kowal2701: Now that I've read the sources, I understand the meaning of the titular names. However, it is not clear to readers. I think some readers will be WP:ASTONISHed by the use of titular names (as I was at first), and the lack of a precise timeline makes it more confusing, as it takes a while before realizing that it's not just one person. I think the best option would to say things like "the first Kaphiti". I will require that this concern be addressed before I pass this nomination, as WP:PERSONOROFFICE is part of WP:WTW, which is part of the GA criteria. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

clarified for Mwali, Undi, Kaphiti, and Lundu

• Just to be clear, do sources refer to Chauta as God (with a capital G) or would another term be more precise?

Juwayeyi uses capital G

• Footnote d (about B. W. Smith's migration hypothesis) needs a citation.

The citation is #10 which follows it outside the note. Would it be better to put it inside?

• I suppose it's not technically required, but I've had GA reviewers suggest including the same citation in the footnote, so I think it's best practice. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

will do this towards the end Done

• a pygmy people called Akafula (sometimes Abatwa or Amwandionerakuti) Does this mean that (a) Akafula is the Chewa name for a people variously identified with Abatwa or Amwandionerakuti, (b) that all three of these are names for the same group, or (c) that these are three different groups present in different versions of the story?

The Chewa call them "Akafula", other groups call them the latter two. I've removed those and created Akafula as a redirect to Twa

• I think it would be best to also include the word Twa, as a gloss, as more readers will recognize the word Twa. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

As an {{efn}} or in brackets? I've done the latter if that's okay

• It's confusing how the second paragraph is about the settlement at Msinja, but then the next paragraph goes back in time before getting to Msinja again.

The 2nd paragraph follows the Pre-Maravi who arrived in Malawi first, the 3rd follows the Maravi who arrived later and met the Pre-Maravi there, together they make up the Chewa. Unfortunately I haven't found a date for when the Pre-Maravi left Katanga. I've moved the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph to the 1st in the hope that makes it less confusing?

• Ah, my bad, I was a bit tired when I read it so I didn't notice the difference. But other readers might be confused like I was. So perhaps it would be clearer to split it into two parts titled "Pre-Maravi" and "Settlement of the Maravi" or something? — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Great idea, done

• It's not ideal that the word Kalonga is first defined in the middle of a sentence about a river. Perhaps consider moving the description of Choma to a footnote?

I agree it's not ideal, but I think Choma is sufficiently important that it's due for prose, I've done some toying and haven't come up with a solution

• Okay, this is acceptable. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• The exact reign of al-Hassan ibn Suliman is irrelevant. Perhaps just describe it as "fourteenth-century".

Done

• now the most revered of the Kalongas doesn't quite feel like something that can be said objectively.

Swapped "revered" for "renowned" per the source

• This change doesn't make a difference. If we want to keep this statement, it would be better to say something like "would later become known for". — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that'd imply he wasn't known at the time. Put "would become the best-known out of the Kalongas"

• Okay, this works. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• I think you can remove the footnote about the etymology of "Chewa", as that information could instead be in the article Chewa people.

Removed

• Tradition continues with the Maravi finally reaching Msinja, where they found the Pre-Maravi Confusing to refer to the Maravi founding the Pre-Maravi. Other statements describe them as disparate groups.

Changed "found" to "met"

• Kalonga aimed to destroy the Pre-Maravi's political organisation Which Kalonga? (Or at least, is a vague timeline known?)

Swapped "Kalonga" for "Chidzonzi"

• There are a few other cases where you use the term "Kalonga" without specifying which one. Uses of the word "Kalonga" should be replaced with the individual name, when applicable, per MOS:PERSONOROFFICE. Though I understand that the names of some Kalongas might not be known, so in those cases, it's fine. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately not known

• the Chewa continued their migration Wouldn't it be better to say the Maravi continued their migration?

Done

• The footnote about the etymology of Mawere a Nyangu needs a citation.

Citation appears at the end of the paragraph, like above would it be better for it to be inside the note?

• Subsequently it became their new homeland Vague

Specified

• One of these to leave Is there a reason to say "one of these" rather than just stating that he left?

Rewrote a bit

• Just to be clear, was Undi not part of the Phiri clan, or was he not descended from the Nyangu? What was his relation to the previous Kalonga?

Rewrote to make clearer

• who were all Banda, the clan Mwali also had to come from → who were Banda As it is already mentioned that the Mwali was always Banda

Done

• reportedly to such levels

Done

• Who is Chulu?

Added more detail per the source

• If Mwale and Kanyenda mean the same thing, you should be consistent in which term to use.

Rewrote a bit, Kanyenda is the title

• Mkanda Mbewe, possibly another son of Kalonga Meaning he was Mkadzula's brother, or the son of a different Kalonga? (Presumably the former, but just making sure.)

Juwayeyi doesn't specify unfortunately

• notoriously is WP:PUFFERY. The sentence could be rephrased to say something like the Zimba, who had become known for defeating the Portuguese if their reputation is relevant.

Removed

• however were eventually defeated by Malindi and the Segeju Unclear.

Rewrote the sentence, the Zimba's exploits are a little tangential so I'm hesitant to add more detail, but I'd be happy to if that's still not sufficient

• Reports say Should specify if these are contemporary Portuguese reports.

Done

• What does it mean that Gatsi Rusere merely claimed to have an alliance with the Kalonga?

Removed

• despite the convenience of appointing Kalongas locally, various powerful counsellors manipulated and abused the system Vague.

Unfortunately this is about as much detail Juwayeyi gives

• splitting the state for some time

Done

• The first mention of Mnanula says he was allied with Sosola, but he later is his enemy; the prose should be more clear if he betrayed him.

Added that they started raiding

• The footnote describing Pemba is not relevant.

Idk, I think a character assessment of him is relevant enough for a note, if only as a written account that corroborates his existence

• Personally I think it should be removed, as it could be included in an article about Pemba if that's created. But it's fine either way and it's not part of the GA criteria. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• with the current ruler being Kalonga Gawa Undi Mkhomo V, reigning since 2004 WP:RELTIME. This statement should be removed as the current Kalonga will not be particularly relevant years from now.

Put "as of 2025" instead, I think ruler changes are rare enough that this is unlikely to become redundant often?

• I think it's irrelevant here. As a comparison, articles like Kingdom of England and Papal States do not mention Charles III or Leo XIV. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorted below, usually non-sovereign monarchies don't meet GNG to have their own article, and information on them is included in the former country article (like Saloum, Sultanate of Agadez etc.)

• Makes sense; you make a valid point about non-sovereign monarchies. The current phrasing looks good. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• I don't see why the Kulamba festival is relevant.

I think so as the present-day manifestation of the state's national identity, non-sovereign monarchies tend to only really hold cultural power/influence and this is what the CRE is most known for

• Okay, I'll accept this either way. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Government

• said to have been Makewana's daughter should be moved to after the sentence defining Makewana.
• Delete the sentence This system broke down in the 18th century, partly as a long-term consequence of Nyangu and the royal family's departure from Mankhamba, contributing significantly to the decline of the state. as it duplicates information from "History".

Done

• The totem of the Phiri/Maravi is thought to have been the baboon. "Thought to have been" is imprecise. Based on the source, it would make sense to just say "was".

Done

• sub-chiefs, and tribute was paid to Kalonga → sub-chiefs, who paid tribute to Kalonga

Done

• as demonstrated by various proverbs is not useful to readers without describing these proverbs.

Done a note

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Economy

• prior to the introduction of money When/by whom?

Changed it to "popularisation of money under colonial rule"

• I don't think it's necessary to include both of the terms bwazi and dewere if they're synonymous. But I'll accept it either way.

Bwazi is the plant, dewere the cloth. Was going to put "finished product called dewere" but too wordy imo

• @Kowal2701: Yeah, I realized this after reading the source. I would suggest this phrasing: Cloth included a type called dewere, made from bwazi; barkcloth made of mombo bark; and cotton cloth, which gradually replaced the others. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Done, thanks

• Is it known what kind of cloth manchila was? Just asking since an earlier statement mentions cloth materials.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Cotton, done

Society and culture

• In the image caption, I don't think the name of the mask is relevant. It would be enough to just say A mask for Nyau ceremonies.

Done

• were relied upon for the society's prosperity Not super clear. From what I gather from the source, I would suggest rephrasing it to made decisions for the society's prosperity.
• Two notable initiation rites

Done

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

List of rulers

• renowned Malawian historian is WP:PUFFERY

Changed to "a Malawian historian who researched the Maravi"

• I think "researched the Maravi" goes without saying, but I will accept it either way. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• He laments feels like unencyclopedic phrasing, but I'll accept it.

:)

• As I mentioned above, I think there should be at least a sentence mentioning that the CRE has its own official list.

Summarised the list in prose, can now remove the current ruler from the history section!

• The statement about Muzura is included as a note about Mchepera, but the connection isn't obvious. You should specify that Portuguese records him say he was from this time.

Done

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• I will be reviewing the most commonly cited sources. For each source, I will verify text-source integrity, then list some possible points that should be included for breadth, then note copyvio issues. I'm listing citation numbers as of this revision: — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

1. (Juwayeyi 2020 chapter 11)
   • Y N It doesn't look like this source outright says when the Pre-Maravi arrived, and it would be more faithful to this source to mention that the dates are disputed. Juwayeyi pg 173 says the Pre-Maravi arrived between the 12th and 14th centuries, since this doesn't contradict the other source I've now gone with that Y N We cannot directly state that Maravi had this particular hierarchy of authority, as the source is making a statement based on the hierarchy that exists in modern Malawi.put "Authority possibly existed..." Y Except I would remove the statement that baskets were made by women, as the source's statement was speculative.Put "likely" Y Except we can't say it's likely that the Maravi grew all these crops, as the source only says it's possible (besides sorghum and millet, which are likely). Replaced "likely" with "possibly" N The source refers to the group village headman in the modern day, not Maravi. Removed, sorry that was sloppy N The statements about the uses of wicker ware and baskets are not valid as this is another case of the source mentioning modern-day practices. Reworded. Juwayeyi starts the chapter saying "one may extrapolate from modern village settings in Malawi ... This will help to establish an image of what the Mankhamba settlement might have looked like", so I think "possibly" represents this
   • All major points from this source are included.
   • Copyvio issues: The phrase mortars, pestles, mats, baskets, drums, and canoes is copied directly from the source. Same goes for cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens and doves. The phrase Other industries included the production of cloth, wicker objects and pottery, and house construction is almost directly from the source. Reworded third one. I can change the order, but the other two seem unparaphrasable
9. (Juwayeyi 2020 chapter 3)
   • Y Y Y N The source doesn't quite say that Kamundi officially held secular leadership. swapped "nominally" for "de facto" Y Y Y Y Y
   • I think we should also mention this source's statement that the Undi and Lundu lineages continue in the present. And maybe mention the god Chisumphi in the part about religion. Also, this source casts doubt on the theory that clan names originated at Choma, so I think this perspective should be represented. Another thing to note, the source does not actually identify the Akafula as the Twa—other sources seem to just translate Akafula as "pygmy", so it might be imprecise to link it to the Twa. A smaller detail: the source refers to Al Hassan ibn Suliman as a wazir, not a sultan. Added re Lundu, Chisumphi, and clans. Juwayeyi gives "Abatwa" as a synonym for Akafula, which is Chichewa for Batwa (redirect to Twa).
   • A few copyvio issues: the statement Chewa tradition says that, when they first saw Lake Malawi from the highlands, it looked like a mirage or flames. is very similar to the source. Msinja had good agricultural conditions, with high-quality soil and lots of water. also feels like close paraphrasing. Both reworded
10. (Phiri 1988) I would suggest adding page numbers for this and other sources where page numbers are missing. But this is not part of the GA criteria so I'll accept it either way. IIRC there's a guideline somewhere that says page numbers aren't needed for journal articles, but it is something I should start doing
    • N Does not support divine creation.In that sentence K. Phiri is only verifying "Chauta" as the Chewa supreme deity, the rest is Juwayeyi Y N Does not verify the part about Chidzonzi's conflict with the Makewana, but you probably meant to cite Juwayeyi here. yeah, K. Phiri is only verifying the clause immediately preceding the ref, sorry Y Except it says the Undi's nephew Chimwala, not Undi himself, invaded the Nsenga.reworded N Does not verify Chulu's identity, but again, you probably meant to cite Juwayeyi. yeah N Does not verify the name of Mkadzula. the Juwayeyi ref at the end Y N Should be rephrased to more accurately describe the relationship between Lundu and Zimba, as they are not described as allies. That's cited to Encyclopedia of African History, Zimba invasions pg 945 "Thus, the Zimba were in alliance with the Lundu of that time and the latter used them to consolidate his power in the Shire valley and beyond." N Does not mention the conflict with the Yao or the situation with Kalongas of different clans. That's Juwayeyi at the end Y N Does not appear to verify that Mkande, Mwase, and Kanyenda were the most powerful. Reworded Y Y Y Y And perhaps clarify that the reason generational averaging doesn't work is because it wasn't hereditary. Done, thanks Y
    • I think we should mention the theory that the Maravi were invaders. This theory is mentioned by both Phiri and Juwayeyi. And it might be worth specifying what the institutions introduced by Chidzonzi were, as they are relevant and mentioned elsewhere in the article.Juwayeyi page 215 says of the Maravi "Events during their migration proved that they were expansionist invaders" (there's a lot of old historiographic debates Juwayeyi settled). I added the word. Added Mlira cult to Chidzonzi
    • The phrase hardships of adult life is copyvio as it could be rephrased. Reworded
11. (Kayange 2018)
    • Y but does not verify "or representatives of him". From Juwayeyi pg 50 N Describes Mwali as descendant, not daughter, of Makewana. Mb Y Y Y
    • All major points from this source are included.
17. (Juwayeyi 2020 chapter 4)
    • Y Except it doesn't verify the sentence about settlement in Mawere a Nyangu. Juwayeyi ref at the end (pg 52) Y Although "replaced" isn't the most fitting word here. Cautious about overcomplicating it Y Y I don't see where it verifies that Kaphwiti disappeared in the seventeenth century. Mb, it's pg 196 that says 16th c. Y N This does not verify the statement about the symbols of office, as the source only mentions one specific Kalonga giving these symbols to officeholders. added a source, unfortunately could only see from a snippet so dk the page
    • Most of the key points from this source are included, but perhaps specify that Changamire's polity grew quite powerful. Put relatively powerful

• @Kowal2701: Okay, so the source spotcheck shows a few issues with unverified statements, though at least a few of these are because you appear to have forgotten to place the right citation on a statement. Some statements that are different from the sources, but nothing really constituting original research. Also some close paraphrasing issues that must be fixed. Breadth is quite good, which is very impressive for a topic of this scale. Please address the issues raised in the source spotcheck and my above comments. I think the biggest issues are with clarity. In particular, there is some confusion where titular names are not distinguished from personal names, which is an issue per MOS:PERSONOROFFICE—though the sources themselves are a little confusing in this regard. Placing this review on hold for now, though I may do a second readthrough with more comments. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, my way of doing citations is probably unclear but it derives from how I approach writing. I usually base a paragraph on a best source, putting the citation at the end, and then supplement that with other sources. So a citation at the end of a paragraph that covers multiple pages tends to be for the whole paragraph, and then citations during the paragraph tend to just be for the preceding sentence (or very often just for a single detail). It'd probably be clearer to duplicate the end-citation every time another one appears, but I'm concerned about readability because of {{rp}}. I'll address the above in a bit, thank you for your time. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Apologies for the confusion about your citations. I'll accept your citation style. The GA criteria only says that content has to be cited before the end of the paragraph, so this is allowed. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

this wasn't showing up for some reason, was in response to source spotcheck 1@Kowal2701: I will cite WP:PLAGIARISM, which says "If the list is drawn from another source (i.e., it is not common knowledge), or if creativity has gone into producing a list by selecting which facts are included, or in which order they are listed, then reproducing the list without citing its source may constitute plagiarism." I think the list starting with "mortars" falls under this category, as Juwayeyi could have chosen different objects to list. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

it's not super clear from that whether creative lists require in-text attribution or just inline citations, but added attribution Kowal2701 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

same w this also in response to 1@Kowal2701: From my understanding of the source, it is still not accurate to state "Authority possibly existed". Juwayeyi does not explicitly consider the possibility that the same hierarchy existed in Maravi. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The quote's (bold mine)

The best one can do to visualise what the Mankhamba settlement might have looked like is to compare it with some of the prosperous-looking modern villages in which Malawian chiefs with the rank of traditional authority or that of a senior or paramount chief reside. In making such a comparison, however, one would initially have to assume that Kalonga was the equivalent of these modern high-ranking chiefs. In Malawi, traditional authority is hierarchically arranged. The lowest rank is that of village headman. Above that and in increasing order of authority are the ranks of group village headman, sub-chief and chiefs of a rank simply called traditional authority. Then there are the top ranks of senior chief and paramount chief.

I think that's a point about the past? Otherwise idk why he would say this if he thought it very likely irrelevant to the Maravi, "possibly" is the weakest qualification I can think of here Kowal2701 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Vigilantcosmicpenguin, I think I've addressed everything above Kowal2701 (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Comments on second readthrough

Looks like almost all of the GA criteria have been met. Just going to do a second readthrough to make sure the prose is clear. I have made some copyedits myself, and there are just a few small comments I think you should address.

• In the second paragraph of the lead, replace Nyangu and the royal family with the royal family, as readers have not yet learned what Nyangu means.

Done

• patterns of seemingly human and animal footprints → patterns that resemble human and animal footprints

Done

• given how essential they are to Chewa society this is unlikely I think this statement needs to be attributed to Juwayeyi.

Done

• I think there should be a sentence about the Nyangu in the paragraph about Chinkhole. (Could cite Juwayeyi, who mentions that the original Nyangu may have been Chinkhole's mother or sister.) Currently, the term Nyangu is first mentioned when discussing Undi, so the significance is not clear to readers.

Good idea, thanks

• as he had done with Changamire to present-day Ntcheu District, who became relatively powerful. → The first relative sent to found a tributary was Changamire (near present-day Ntcheu District), whose polity became relatively powerful.

Done

• I've reordered the three statements about Chidzonzi because I think it flows more clearly. Let me know if this makes sense.

Looks good, made some small changes

• it is more plausible possible they were vassals as "more plausible" is a statement of opinion by Juwayeyi.

Done

• Chulu had been declined and been replaced by Mwase as the current phrasing implies a direct succession.

Done

• I will accept that the Kulamba festival can be mentioned, but the exact number of chiefs is irrelevant and should be removed.

Done, I've seen different numbers in less reliable sources so it may fluctuate anyway

• Personally, I still think we shouldn't rely so much on Juwayeyi's speculation, but I will accept the statements about the society as they are still reasonable readings of the sources. Still, I will suggest that you remove the statement about the hierarchy of authority. The second paragraph of the government section already has a clear description of chiefs and sub-chiefs, so there is no need for additional, unceratin details.

Good point, removed, also because of the structure of the state is more important that that of the society

• every September → every year, approximately in September

put "around September", I think approximately is more used for calculations

@Kowal2701: I think a few tweaks will be necessary to meet the clarity requirement. I will pass this nomination once you address these issues. This aside, you have done an impressive job on this very information-dense article, especially as this will be your first GA. I will also note that this will be the first GA about pre-colonial Southern Africa, so thanks for contributing to our coverage! — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Vigilantcosmicpenguin, think I've addressed the above. Thank you for the kind words and such a thorough review, the article's so much better for it. Good luck in the DCWC! Kowal2701 (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2025 (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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chewa mask - Malawi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)