Talk:Chinese Indonesians/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 13:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Will review this over the weekend

Comments

• I read the bold Indonesian Chinese in the lead and my first thought was what are the Indonesian people living in China called then? It is explained quite well in the identity section, but I would suggest either unbolding it so it doesn't stick out so much (it appears to be a historical term so this should not be an issue) or removing or moving it. It caused me a little confusion until I got to the identity section so i could do the same for other readers. This is just a suggestion and by no means a requirement.

• Added historically

• Such treatment also persisted in Indonesia with a majority of the population referring to them as orang Cina, orang Tionghoa Should there be an "or" between orang cina and orang Tionghos?

Added.

• Chinese traders boycotted Portuguese Malacca after it fell to the Portuguese in the Capture of Malacca (1511), Would you consider piping this link and using the 1511 C[c]apture of Malacca.

Agreed

• The new harbor was selected... This is the first mention of a harbour yet the way it is written assumes it has already been mentioned.

Fixed

• Batavia became home to the largest Chinese community in the archipelago and remains so today, though the city has been renamed as Jakarta. Renamed as Jakarta? Would to Jakarta be better?

Reworded (differently)

• The Indonesian Military under Suharto sided with the Christian and polythiest animist Dayak people in the wholesale slaughter of ethnic Chinese in West Kalimantan in Borneo. The Dayak had been converted to Christianity by western missionaries. Suharto instigated the massacres against the Chinese. The coup by Suharto was with the support of the American CIA.[58] Su. Whats up with this paragraph. It doesn't flow like the rest and I am not sure what it is saying.
• With help from the Indonesian military, the Dayaks slaughtered thousands directly, up to 5000, then forced the Chinese to flee to the coast, and herded them into concentration camps. This could do with some work too. Either use "thousands directly" or "up to 5000". Too many commas in any case make it a bit confusing.
• I think the last two paragraphs under "loyalty in question" were added by someone other than the original author. The prose is a bit stilted (short sentences) and it is not as coherent pus it is a little repetitive. Could it be incorporated better into this section; it is referenced and from what I am reading the anti communist massacre could do with a bit more detail. Maybe combine them into one paragraph or attach a sentence to the third one. You could even take the last sentence of the third paragraph and use it to start a forth one detailing the massacre. So far this is the only part where the prose has fallen down.

• Nuked entirely, as they give undue weight to the issues with the Dayak. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was worried you had forgotten this! I'll take a look later today. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Finishing off

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Apologies for the very slow review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   excellent

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Spot checks (where I could access in Google books) were fine

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Extremely thorough

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I felt comfortable that this was fair throughout

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   looks good

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Many images from Tropenmuseum collection. Happy with the rational for the one non-free image. Bit concerned about File:Chinese Indonesian origin distribution.png. The file it was derived from has been deleted [1] as a copyright violation. I have requested someone look at it from the Commons help desk. Everything else seemed fine to me. Good captions

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Again sorry for the delay. Just the one picture to sort out and I will pass this. On a side note I don't want to get into the Chinese traditional medicine debate, but I was a little uneasy about the "Food with healing properties," statement. Would think about softening that a bit (maybe "food said to have healing properties" or something). Won't change the status because of that though. AIRcorn (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Image removed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Softened wording. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Passing