Talk:1678 Kediri campaign

1678 Kediri campaign is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by HaEr48 (talk) at 17:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Indonesia B‑class Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Southeast Asia B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force

A fact from 1678 Kediri campaign appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 May 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that during the 1678 Kediri campaign, the VOC–Mataram army purposely split itself and took a longer route to Kediri, in order to impress more people?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kediri campaign (1678).

Wikipedia

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 8 June 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kediri campaign (1678)/GA1. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
- "supranatural" - should be "supernatural"
  - Done. HaEr48 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- What ref should "Ricklefs 1985" be pointing to?
  - Done. HaEr48 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

Images check out.

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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