Talk:1678 Kediri campaign/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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 Naming conventions (events). 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)

Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Images check out.


 * Thanks 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)
 * 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)