Talk:Siege of Malacca (1641)

Battle of Malacca

I appreciate your desire to help, but I promise you I have a vision for this article that will be fulfilled. I hope I don't sound rude saying so, but it would be easier if you didn't assist. Most of what you changed was what I intended. I should be finished reforming it soon. Again, I'm not trying to disrespect you. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I don't believe your trying to be rude but you can't tell someone to just don't edit as they see fit. This is Wikipedia, anyone can edit. And so I will edit as I see fit. But anyway, I don't think I will change most of what you will edit. Anyway please don't change the lead, I believe it is already good that way and one shouldn't change something that already isn't broken. Meaning, well-written and sourced edits. In that case, anyone can just change any article that is already good.

Also, I'm not sure what you said by "Most of what you changed was what I intended"? Are you talking about the removal of the lead? If so, you shouldn't leave a lead empty or a new heading empty even if you plan on coming back to it later. If you want to experiment, you should use the sandbox.

Danial Bass (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot get access to the original source used in the lead, and since the lead of an article should never have information not in the body, the content there will have to go sooner or later since there is no way for me to put that source in the body without directly copying what is said in the lead. You are probably right that I should have waited, though. And for your second point, I was just talking about some of the miscellaneous copy edits. I'll figure it out. Best wishes to you. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for that last reversion, I made a mistake. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Malacca (1641)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Image appropriately licensed, but needs a source with link.

  Done and corrected date, which was apparently slightly off.

• according to Portugal This needs a bit more detail, IMO. Portuguese sources or the Portuguese gov't? How do your sources phrase it?

  The source only attributes the claim to the "Padres", which I can't really define from the context given.

• ShawnaKim Lowey-Ball, an associate professor at the University of Utah on the history of Malacca and other parts of Southeast Asia, Shorten this to something like "historian ShawnaKim Lowey-Ball,"

   Done

• has argued that Portugal's exploitation of the division between Hindus and Muslims, as well as the reformed government it introduced, which attempted to impose Catholicism, create a singular currency, and monopolise the spice trade, had led to its economic decline and loss of the status it once held under their rule. This is a very complicated sentence which is hard to understand. I suggest breaking into two or more sentences.

   Done

• occurred between 1623–1627 "during"

   Done

• No mention of the Dutch East India Company? You repeatedly refer to the "Dutch", which implies that the Dutch government is conducting these operations.

  Checked again; you are right that it was the Dutch East India company. I replaced several mentions, although I don't think it would be completely inappropriate to use the word Dutch a few times, as long as it's clear enough that it refers to the the Dutch East India Company, so as to avoid having to repeat the full name over and over (feel free to disagree with this statement).

• Occasional vessels continued to arrive in the years that followed, seeking to harass the Portuguese forces. This needs to be rephrased as it implies government ships attacked Portuguese ships, etc.

  Now that I've implemented your last suggestion, this shouldn't be a problem.

• Link to Sergeant Major as it was used by the Dutch back then, as this implies an enlisted man to readers

  It doesn't look like we have an article to link to.

• The previous Dutch commander, Cornelis Symonz van der Veer, could not lead, as he had died since then, so Sergeant Major Adriaen Antonisz was sent in his place. awkward, rephrase

   Done

• These troops moved to the citadel to meet another 200 Europeans, with a similar amount of natives What citadel, the Portuguese one? Were these Dutch allies or Portuguese troops?

  Explained.

• Don't use enemy, but rather Portuguese

   Done

• Neither the Portuguese or Dutch wavered for months, while sickness spread amongst Dutch soldiers at their encampment, killing many. Rephrase along the lines, "The Dutch maintained the siege despite losses to sickness"

   Done

• While the people of Johor did not participate in the final storming, the Dutch maintained their support and respect for them. Awkward, rephrase

  It probably is best to just leave this out altogether, which I did.

• I've made some changes to make the article more readable. Feel free to revert if you disagree with my changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  Your changes look good. I've replied to everything. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that despite losing almost one thousand men capturing Malacca in 1641, the Dutch East India Company did not invest much time or energy into it afterward? Source: Liquid Market, Solid State: The rise and demise of the great global emporium at Malacca, 1400-1641 — "For their part, the Dutch let Malacca play second fiddle to Batavia, expending minimal time and energy on the new colony." The Siege and Capture of Malacca from the Portuguese in 1640-1641 — "We lost in the siege a little under 1,000 men killed in action and dead through the epidemics."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Paint Drying

Improved to Good Article status by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk). Self-nominated at 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC).

•  Reviewing... Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @An anonymous username, not my real name: Good article. Hook is interesting, article is sourced, and the QPQ is done. Approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)