Talk:1678 Kediri campaign

1678 Kediri campaign has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 6, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed
October 17, 2018	WikiProject A-class review	Approved

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 26, 2017.

The text of the entry was: 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?

Current status: Good article

Indonesia GA‑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
GA	This article has been rated as GA-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 A‑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

A

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

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

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 25, 2018.

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]