Talk:Indonesian National Revolution/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The article is well written but I am concerned that it is not written in a suitably neutral tone; weasel words and phrases in sentences such as Dutch forces were not able to prevail over the inexperienced but determined Indonesians, but strong enough to resist being expelled.; Hopes for democracy and freedom were thwarted by the autocratic tendencies of the subsequent rulers.; As the news spread, ordinary Indonesians felt a sense of freedom that led most to regard themselves as pro-Republican, and the elation of revolution swept across the country; Massive fiery pro-Revolution demonstrations took place in large cities, ...; In September and October 1945 the ugly side of revolution surfaced with a series of incidents involving pro-Dutch Eurasians, and atrocities committed by Indonesian mobs against European internees. It is a matter of choice of words such as inexperienced and determined, autocratic tendencies, a sense of freedom, Massive fiery pro-Revolution demonstrations, the ugly side of revolution surfaced. I am sure that this sort of language was used in teh sources, but if used in the article, it must be directly attributed to the source as in So-and-so described the demonstrations as massive and fiery. Or direct quotes could be used. Left as it is this article fails the neutrality criterion. ✅
 * Excellent work, so much improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Sources appear reliable, I fixed five dead links. And I just fixed another. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * See my comments above
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * T he tone of the article is not neutrally encyclopaedic. It needs to be toned down and weasel words removed. If sources use such language they may be directly quoted or attributed as suggested above. On hold for seven days for this to be addressed. Major contributors and projects wil be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hard work, I am happy that this artcile meets the GA standards. I would suggest that you get a peer review and perhaps consider taking it to featured article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * T he tone of the article is not neutrally encyclopaedic. It needs to be toned down and weasel words removed. If sources use such language they may be directly quoted or attributed as suggested above. On hold for seven days for this to be addressed. Major contributors and projects wil be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hard work, I am happy that this artcile meets the GA standards. I would suggest that you get a peer review and perhaps consider taking it to featured article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Marshall funds
Hi all, noticed this sentence: The Dutch East Indies administration had just received a ten million dollar loan from the United States to finance its return to Indonesia. Dont really think the Marshall funds were ever specifically intended for that. Maybe one to reword? (Great article btw) Bye, --KARL RAN (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)