Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early history of Gowa and Talloq/archive1

Early history of Gowa and Talloq

 * Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) and Masjawad99 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the early history of Gowa and Talloq, a pair of kingdoms which later became one of strongest powers in pre-colonial Indonesia. The article was initially written and passed to GA by, but he hasn't been active since. Recently, and myself tried to expand and improve the already great article, and hopefully it's ready for the FAC process now. We'll be able to respond to comments during this nomination. HaEr48 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: I still have an open nomination for Kediri campaign (1678), but according to WP:FAC guideline: two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them and in this case I am co-nominating with Masjawad99. HaEr48 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

image review


 * Should use upright rather than fixed px size
 * Done. HaEr48 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Balla'_Lompoa_Museum.jpg: as Indonesia does not have freedom of panorama, this will need a tag for the original work. Same with File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Moskee_te_Gowa_op_Celebes._TMnr_60013084.jpg
 * Added original work tag for File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Moskee_te_Gowa_op_Celebes._TMnr_60013084.jpg, couldn't think of an appropriate one for Balla'_Lompoa_Museum.jpg so I removed it. HaEr48 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Founding_of_Talloq.png: what is the source of the amendments added to the base map? Same with File:Tunipalangga's_conquests.png.
 * The 29 April revisions? That was my stupidity, I accidentally replaced them with the Indonesian versions I created for id.wp. They have been reverted to the 2016 versions. Or are you talking about something else?  Masjawad99  (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the various annotations that were added to the base map by the original uploader. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The original uploader cites Bulbeck (1992) for his Tunipalangga's conquests map; I looked up quickly and found Figure 4-4 with the exact depiction of the map (but plus additional details of conquests from other kings. The OG uploader just filter the ones done by Tunipalangga). For the Founding of Talloq map, the interpretation is likely also based on the same source (Figure 12-7).  Masjawad99  (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:Mike Christie, who carried out the GA review. ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did, and I thought the article was in excellent shape then. Unfortunately I'm so busy in real life for the foreseeable future that I don't expect to have much time to edit.  I have this on my watchlist and will review it if I find time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * All links to sources are working
 * Formats:
 * Ref 22 requires pp. not p.
 * Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 26 requires pp. not p.
 * Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 79 requires pp., also hyphen needs replacing with ndash
 * Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Retrieval dates: I'm not sure of the basis whereby retrieval dates are included for some journal articles. You could probably dispense with these.
 * Done and deleted access date to be consistent. HaEr48 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Quality and reliability: The article is very extensively sourced and referenced. The sources appear to be of the appropriate high quality to meet the requirements of the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review HaEr48 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Coord note
Sorry but this nom is taking too long to get into gear with only image and source reviews after three weeks, so I'm going to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, does it mean the nomination is closed without promition? Shouldn't we give it more time, given that there's no negative feedback about it so far, and the GA review was quite supportive? HaEr48 (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)