Talk:Sudirman/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 10:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

This is an excellent article. My comments are pretty minor:

• You're really not going to like this (and I don't like it one bit either), but the photos of the buildings and grave might not be OK as Indonesia doesn't have freedom of panorama according to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Indonesia Given that they're government buildings they might be OK though... (sorry if this comment is confusing; I'm a bit confused about it!).

• Works of architecture where there is no architect credited have 50 year copyright protection under Indonesian law (buildings don't attract copyright protection for photographic representations in the US, so no worrying about the URAA). As the military headquarters and grave date to before 1961, they should be fine to take pictures of. At the A-class review for Oerip, Nikkimaria didn't have a problem with the images so long as they were properly tagged. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, excellent Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• "but was later brought for detention in Bogor" - this wording is a bit unclear

• Changed to "interned". How's this?

• "He was tasked with handling Japanese soldiers in Banyumas" - I think that a stronger word than 'handling' is needed

• How's this?

• The link to Allies of World War II behind 'Allied forces' doesn't seem appropriate - the forces were the British (and Indian Army) and Dutch. The other Allied contingents in the NEI (eg, the Australians and Americans) took great care to keep out of all fighting, and the Australian Government appears to have been mildly sympathetic towards the independence movement (or at least recognised continued Dutch rule as being unrealistic in the long term).

• Changed to "allied British and Dutch forces"

• You could probably drop the 'allied', but that works Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• At the risk of revealing my lack of knowledge about Indonesian culture, what's a "pon Sunday"?

• Added a piped link to Javanese calendar#Wetonan cycle. It seems to be confusing even for Indonesians — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• "he was also taught the work ethic and simplicity of the wong cilik, or commoners.[9] He also studied Islam" - the near repetition of 'he was also' could be avoided

• How's this?

• Why was Sudirman subjected to ridicule at his government-run school?\

• Clarified in a footnote

• The first paragraph of the 'Japanese occupation' section is a bit confusing given that the Colonial authorities maintained a Indonesian-manned Army and (I think) Navy units - I think that "the Dutch colonials – who had previously restricted military training for native Indonesians" is too broad

• Is "limited" better? Admittedly the KNIL had a few good native officers, but most of its leadership was Dutch. I didn't intend for "restricted" to be read "forbidden" in the sentence.

• "After the Japanese began occupying the Indies in early 1942, against which the colonial military could do little to resist" - this is probably a bit too strong given that the colonial military put up a good fight in several parts of the NEI before being overwealmed by larger/better trained Japanese forces. The issue was the totally inadequate size of the colonial military, and the poor readiness of many of its units.

• How's "winning several battles against (understaffed?) Dutch and Dutch-trained forces"

• "At the same time, allied forces made their way to the Indies to retake the archipelago for the Netherlands" - to be pedantic, this was underway in the last year of the war (the US captured some of Western New Guinea and Morotai in 1944, and the Australians captured Balikpapan and Tarakan in 1945, and these were sort-of handed over to Dutch civil affairs units)

• Would "were on their way" work better, in your opinion. That additional information could be worked into a footnote, of course, using sources in the related articles.

• How about "At the same time, allied forces were in the process of retaking the Indonesian archipelago for the Netherlands" or similar? The Australians didn't fight in Dutch New Guinea by the way - this was a US Army show - and the occupation/liberation of the islands didn't begin until after the surrender documents were signed in Tokyo Bay at the start of September. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Done. I worded it "through 1945" to permit earlier battles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Royal Netherlands East Indies Army should probably be mentioned much earlier in the article per my above comments

• Hmm? It's mentioned at the beginning of "Japanese occupation". Reworked now to be cleareer.

• "That October British forces," - should this note the presence of Indian Army units? (who were, of course, entirely under British command)

• How's "British-led forces"

• "European troops had landed in Java in September" - ditto; I think that most of these troops were actually Indian

• How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All the GA criteria are met; thanks for your quick response, and great work with this article. Please note my extra comment above, but it's on a fairly peripheral issue. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)