Talk:1678 Kediri campaign/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 18:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this on. Parsecboy (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• General comments:
  • Is there a reason the article has a year disambiguator? There's no Kediri campaign to distinguish from at the moment
    • Good point. I looked up the policy and found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions. For events with no established name, it recommends having a title that has the "when" even when there is no ambiguity with other Wikipedia articles, such as 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. It is a useful description, and can identify this campaign from other events in Javanese history that might be construed as a "Kediri campaign". HaEr48 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "supranatural" - should be "supernatural"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Earwig's tool is clean

• Sources:
  • I don't know that theses are considered reliable sources - has Kemper been published elsewhere? Ideally the thesis would have been turned into a book.
    • Good point. I looked it up and according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". I don't think this is the case for Kemper's thesis. I used it because it's in English, but discusses a lot of sources originally in Dutch or Javanese (which I don't read), and because it contains much greater detail about the campaign (because of the thesis's smaller scope) than the more general books. Given the policy, though, I will find other sources for the statements and remove some of them. Please give me some time to do it. HaEr48 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What ref should "Ricklefs 1985" be pointing to?
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If Andaya's and Ricklef's newer book aren't being used, they should be moved to a further reading section
    • Removed. Probably an earlier version of the article used it, but not anymore. HaEr48 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Images check out.

Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Parsecboy for your review. I addressed most of your feedback above. Please give me several days to replace or remove the Kemper references, because I need to look up other sources. HaEr48 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: All Kemper references have been removed. Let me know if there's anything more I can do. HaEr48 (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks good to me - I'll pass it now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)