Talk:Sierk Coolsma/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 02:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi there! Glad to be working with you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Good job with this article, you started from scratch and improved it rapidly! Information on this topic seems sparse, in English at least, but you've done a good job of weaving together available sources into a coherent narrative.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The prose is excellent, I couldn't find any errors. Quotes are well-integrated into the text.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I can't speak to the foreign-language sources, but you seem to accurately represent the English-language sources and the citations are very thorough. The formatting is consistent and there doesn't seem to be any OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is short, but as far as I can tell it encompasses all the information available. It could be enhanced by adding background information to give us more context on what else was happening in Indonesian missions at the time, but the coverage is broad enough for GA.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   Yes, the image isn't super high-quality but nothing better seems to be available. It has an appropriate rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Again, great job on this! I wish I could provide more feedback but I can't find much that needs improvement. I've left a few comments/suggestions below if you are interested, but the article meets the GA criteria so I am closing this review as pass.

• Thanks for the review! As for the comments, I'll work on them momentarily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• You might consider briefly explaining what dangding is to provide some context.
• He disputed the idea that missionary work should be focused on the non-Islamicised eastern portion of the colony should be prioritsed over the western portion, where Islam had already become entrenched. This sentence seems malformed, consider revising.

• D'oh! Got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Do the sources give any more information on M. J. Gerretson? Was she also a missionary?

• She seems to have been the son of a Dutchman living in Cianjur, although I haven't had any luck. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't able to find articles about Coolsma on any other language Wikipedias, but if they do exist it would be nice to have links to them.

• Neither have I, although I wouldn't be surprised if a translation pops up in a few months. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I notice that the article on Lie Kim Hok mentions Coolsma; would it be appropriate to mention Lie in this article?

• Lie seems to not have had that close of a relationship with Coolsma; he was much closer to van der Linden. Perhaps in a "See also" section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of the link to WorldCat for Coolsma's memoirs? It seems like the book reference alone is sufficient to verify that he wrote it.

• Don't have access to the book yet, otherwise I'd have tried using it to flesh out the article a bit more :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Online version of Terugblick op mijn levensweg is available at: [1] Rmhermen (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)