Talk:Siege of Malacca (1641)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image appropriately licensed, but needs a source with link.
Done and corrected date, which was apparently slightly off.
according to Portugal This needs a bit more detail, IMO. Portuguese sources or the Portuguese gov't? How do your sources phrase it?
The source only attributes the claim to the "Padres", which I can't really define from the context given.
ShawnaKim Lowey-Ball, an associate professor at the University of Utah on the history of Malacca and other parts of Southeast Asia, Shorten this to something like "historian ShawnaKim Lowey-Ball,"
Done
has argued that Portugal's exploitation of the division between Hindus and Muslims, as well as the reformed government it introduced, which attempted to impose Catholicism, create a singular currency, and monopolise the spice trade, had led to its economic decline and loss of the status it once held under their rule. This is a very complicated sentence which is hard to understand. I suggest breaking into two or more sentences.
Done
occurred ~~between~~ 1623–1627 "during"
Done
No mention of the Dutch East India Company? You repeatedly refer to the "Dutch", which implies that the Dutch government is conducting these operations.
Checked again; you are right that it was the Dutch East India company. I replaced several mentions, although I don't think it would be completely inappropriate to use the word Dutch a few times, as long as it's clear enough that it refers to the the Dutch East India Company, so as to avoid having to repeat the full name over and over (feel free to disagree with this statement).
Occasional vessels continued to arrive in the years that followed, seeking to harass the Portuguese forces. This needs to be rephrased as it implies government ships attacked Portuguese ships, etc.
Now that I've implemented your last suggestion, this shouldn't be a problem.
Link to Sergeant Major as it was used by the Dutch back then, as this implies an enlisted man to readers
It doesn't look like we have an article to link to.
The previous Dutch commander, Cornelis Symonz van der Veer, could not lead, as he had died since then, so Sergeant Major Adriaen Antonisz was sent in his place. awkward, rephrase
Done
These troops moved to the citadel to meet another 200 Europeans, with a similar amount of natives What citadel, the Portuguese one? Were these Dutch allies or Portuguese troops?
Explained.
Don't use enemy, but rather Portuguese
Done
Neither the Portuguese or Dutch wavered for months, while sickness spread amongst Dutch soldiers at their encampment, killing many. Rephrase along the lines, "The Dutch maintained the siege despite losses to sickness"
Done
While the people of Johor did not participate in the final storming, the Dutch maintained their support and respect for them. Awkward, rephrase
It probably is best to just leave this out altogether, which I did.
I've made some changes to make the article more readable. Feel free to revert if you disagree with my changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look good. I've replied to everything. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]