Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1740 Batavia massacre

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1740 Batavia massacre

Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it fulfills all five criteria. It may be a little weak on prose (criteria 4), per Dank's comments at the failed FA candidate last year, but I'm hoping that having extra eyes here can help clean up the prose and make the next FAC a breeze. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I had a go at copy editing. Please check that you are happy with my edits. I have the following comments for the review:

according to the Featured article tools, there are no dab links and all the external links work (no action required);
I wasn't able to check the image licencing due to limited download on my plan. Please check that you are confident that they are appropriately licenced, or ask someone to post an image review here;
the article seems well cited and I believe it meets the A-class referencing requirements (A1), it also seems well structured (A3) and contains appropriate images (A5), although as I said, I wasn't able to review them;
in regards to A2 (comprehensive, factually accurate) the infobox says ">10,000 killed, >700 injured" but the start of the Aftermath says "10,000 people were killed within Batavia's city walls, while another 500 were seriously wounded". Unless I missed something, this seems a little inconsistent;
A2, in the infobox "9–24 October 1740", but in the lead "came to an end on 22 October";
in regards to A4 (concise and accurate English) in the Aftermath, this sentence confused me (can you please try to clarify what you mean either on this review, or by rewording the article?): "Valckenier had asked to be replaced late in 1740, and in February 1741 had received a reply instructing him to appoint van Imhoff as his successor; alternatively, the Lords XVII informed him that his replacement by van Imhoff was his punishment for exporting too much sugar and too little coffee in 1739."
if these few points can be addressed, I'd be happy to support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check and copyedit
Images are all PD-100, am fine with these. An image review would be appreciated, of course.
Thanks again
Fixed
Fixed
I think I've made it clearer.

Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, happy to help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I peer-reviewed this, and find it to be significantly improved. The addition of Dutch sources (whose lack I noted in that review) has clearly added depth. A minor quibble: given its mention in the lead, I expected slightly more (a short paragraph, say) on the cultural references to the event, including 20th century references if possible. Magic♪piano 02:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, it really helped. There is a paragraph in #Effects with a bit of information. No reliable sources indicating 20th century uses, although I have seen a 2 page description of the event in Sindhunata's Putri Cina (which I did my undergraduate thesis on; yes, I'm a literature major). Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image licensing needs another approach. You cannot, on files such as File:Chinezenmoord van stolk (2).jpg, say the author is unknown and use an life+70 tag. Instead, you should use {{PD-Netherlands}} – if the author cannot be put beyond reasonable doubt, which I think is a strong claim. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative (and possible included anyway) is to check whether all co-authors are dead. This would help your claim in any case. Abraham van Stolk appears to have died in 1896 and Gerrit van Rijn in 1912. WorldCat mentions a "C van Ommeren" but archive.org's version doesn't actually seem to mention one (here). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to {{PD-old-auto}}. Included birth and death dates for the authors. Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Read through this at lunch time and really enjoyed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.