Talk:Trunajaya rebellion/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Simon Burchell (talk · contribs) 12:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

@HaEr48: Reading though now, will comment as I go. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped in some wikilinks, please check that they're appropriate. Wikilinking seems somewhat spordadic, so do check through to see if more can be added. On the whole, links should be in the text and the captions. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for the wikilinks, and I fixed some of them. Didn't realize that they need to be both in the text and in the caption. Sometimes I get scolded for linking the same thing too many times. HaEr48 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, so do I. Thanks for the changes. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A section giving a brief overview of weapons/armour of the belligerents would be helpful. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but this will take some additional research, the sources that I currently have don't discuss those. Give me some time to find appropriate sources. HaEr48 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I just think it is important to know if we're talking firearms and cannon on one side, and similar weaponry on the other, or spears and arrows... Simon Burchell (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

~~I'm not at all familiar with the region - a map of the provinces mentioned would be very handy.~~ Simon Burchell (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added map. HaEr48 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, makes a lot more sense now. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

>s>In 1670 Kajoran introduced his son-in-law Trunajaya to the crown prince, who had recently been banished by the king due to a scandal... Who had been banished - the crown prince? Simon Burchell (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the crown prince, isn't it obvious from the context? "A introduced X to Y, who was ..." HaEr48 (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking - that is how I understood it! Simon Burchell (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Presumably this is the same crown prince that later became Amangkurat II, can he be named, or would it cause confusion?~~ Simon Burchell (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is the same as Amangkurat II, but he only took the title Amangkurat II after becoming king. The first mention of "the crown prince" in the article clarifies that: "the crown prince (later Amangkurat II), who was ....". My sources do not mention his name before being king, and instead refer to him as "the crown prince", as the article does here. HaEr48 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, we can only work with the information at hand... Simon Burchell (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning and initial rebel victories

burned principal cities in northeast Java, including Pajarakan to Surabaya and Gresik - there's something wrong here in the phrasing. Perhaps replace "including" with "from". Simon Burchell (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VOC intervention and fall of Mataram's capital

Section title - looks like 2 capitals fell in this section? Maybe the title could be changed to reflect that. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was only one capital that fell - the Mataram capital at Plered ("the rebel campaign culminated in the fall of the capital Plered in June 1677."). Which other capital are you talking about? HaEr48 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trunajaya fled Surabaya and established his capital in Kediri suggests that he just lost his capital. If not, and it was his first founding of a capital, maybe change "established his" to "founded a", or rephrase in some other way. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Simon Burchell :) I hope my updates made sense. I will be back with the weapons information and update this review page. HaEr48 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far, the map is particularly helpful. Just waiting on the bit about weaponry, but no rush, just ping me when you're ready. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Burchell: added a section on the forces of the belligerents, including weaponry. In general it looks like all sides had firearms and cannons, although the Dutch forces had better discipline and logistics. HaEr48 (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: Excellent - just what was needed, but I would move it between the "Background" and "Campaign" sections (it's nice to know about the armament before reading about the conflict itself. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Burchell: Done. HaEr48 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the changes, and especially for adding the extra text and map. It is a fine article and I have no hesitation in passing it as GA. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thanks Simon Burchell for spending time on this review, and for the thoughtful feedback which have obviously led to the improvement of the article! HaEr48 (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]