Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Kediri campaign (1678)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Kediri campaign (1678) edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk)

Kediri campaign (1678) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it pass all of milhist A-class criteria. I started the article from scratch, made sure it covers every major fact and that it's all referenced to a reliable source. It passed GA too. HaEr48 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Sources used in the article appear to be reliable. Also conducted spot checks on sources available through Google Books. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 edit

  • Link Bugis, all of the geographic place names, including rivers, marines,
  • Explain how Speelman became director-general so quickly after van Goens was appointed.
  • That's not what the article said. There were two posts, governor-general (the top post) and director-general. Initially Maetsuycker was g-g and van Goens was d-g. Then on January 1978 Maetsuycker died, and van Goens became g-g. This freed up the d-g post, and Speelman became d-g. Do you have suggestion how to clarify it in the article
  • I just failed to read the paragraph closely enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, desertion and reduced this army again
  • Desertion and disease caused the forces to dwindle.[1] At the time of the assault on Kediri, the VOC had 1,750 men, of which 659 were Europeans. Combine these sentences for better flow
  • Put Schrieke in title case in the Bibliography
  • Thanks for the review, Sturmvogel 66. See my responses above. Let me know if I can do more. HaEr48 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gog the Mild edit

  • "14,500 (according to rebel)" Should read '(according to the rebels)'.
  • "the Mataram–VOC army purposefully split itself and the columns took different, indirect routes to". Is it recorded how many columns there were?
  • Yes, three columns. It's explained in "March to Kediri" section, and I've also reworded the lead. HaEr48 (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my eye the Background lacks background. Having read the first paragraph of it I have no idea where the action is taking place geographically (somewhere in Asia?), what the VOC is doing there (trading, slave trading, settling, colonising?) nor how long it has been doing it (did they first arrive in 1677?).
  • Who is "Trunajaya"? He is mentioned in the first sentence with no introduction. (A local king?)
  • A prince from Madura. Mentioned in background. HaEr48 (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to establish a new capital in Kediri"; "The capital was sacked". Is this the same capital?
  • No, Kediri was Trunajaya's capital, while Plered (which was sacked) was the royal capital. Hopefully it is clearer now. HaEr48 (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What and/or where is Mataram?
  • In Java, today's Indonesia. Hopefully the expanded background section makes it clearer now. HaEr48 (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "signed a treaty renewing their alliance." Is there a reason why the alliance being renewed is not mentioned? Had it been broken, or expired? In either case when? In any case how long had the previous alliance ran for?
  • The background section now mentions when the original alliance started. I'll dig more into why it is "renewed". HaEr48 (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This covered all previous VOC campaigns on Mataram's behalf up to October". ? Do you mean 'This covered the costs of all...'?
  • Basically, payments. VOC helps Mataram in exchange for payments, and that payments was for up to October. HaEr48 (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and awarded monopolies on textiles, opium, and sugar to the company." On growing, manufacturing, trading or exporting them? Or some combination?
  • "the entire treasury was taken by the rebels". I am guessing from context that "the rebels" are the same as "Trunajaya's forces". In either case, the use of "rebels" suggests that a rebellion is taking place. Could you supply some information on it?
  • The background section now starts with an introduction to Trunajaya's rebellion. HaEr48 (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Gog the Mild. I've responded for the first two, but I need to re-borrow some sources to answer the other questions, so it will take maybe a week or so. Apologies for the delay. HaEr48 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was just on the first paragraph . The rest of the review is below.
  • I carried out some minor copy editing. Could you check it please?
  • Thanks. I checked the diff, and it looks fine to me. HaEr48 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "various challengers of the king" -> 'the King' per MOS:JOBTITLES. Similarly in several other places.
  • Done (also in other places). HaEr48 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "Speelman himself". Not sure what "himself" communicates here. Who else would he be?
  • "The VOC also brought the forces of Arung Palakka, its Bugis allies in the Makassar War (1666–69)." I am a little confused by this: brought from where? (And to where?) Is "allies" supposed to be plural?
  • From Celebes (where the Bugis are from) to Java (where the war was fought). Anyway, I reworded the whole sentence to clarify. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "but limited supplies meant it was saved for the final assault". Would that be 'limited supplies of ammunition...'?
  • "that the troops be divided into columns and march along a lengthy overland route". But they marched along several routes, of differing lengths, not "a" lengthy route.
  • "who were unfamiliar with the terrain of the Javanese interior". I suspect that you mean 'conditions', not "terrain".
  • "and continued to pick-off the loyalists' foragers and stragglers." This is the first mention of this; way do you say "continued"?
  • Replaced with "continuously harassed". HaEr48 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. (A nice, detailed article.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The victors also found... holy regalia (pusaka). A special cannon... was found among the recovered regalia." Either I am missing something, or that reads oddly. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which part is odd? The cannon had a name and was considered a regalia, and was among those that the victors captured after the assault. I tried to reword the sentence. Please check, does it read better now? HaEr48 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... according to the journal." What journal?
  • The journal of Hurdt's secretary. Updated the description now. HaEr48 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: Thanks for your patience. I've addressed your comments, please take another look. HaEr48 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere . And it was a substantial list. In my biased opinion it reads better now. I am happy with all of your changes. (I hope that you are too, feel free to come back here if, on reflection, you aren't with anything.)
  • One outstanding issue. Regalia has five possible meanings. A cannon would just about fit under number 3, assuming that it was solidly supported by the sources. But it would be (very) unusual and could do with, IMO, some explanation. (I note that you go into some detail to explain that the golden crown was not considered to be regalia.) How about something like: 'The captured regalia included a special cannon, named "Nyai Setomi" and called mriyem berkat ("blessed cannon") and wasiyat Mataram ("Mataram's heirloom"), which was considered an important symbol of kingship.' (I don't insist on this wording, it is only there to give you an idea of the sort of thing which I think would be helpful to a reader.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: I added the explanation "which was considered an heirloom of the Mataram's royal dynasty". Does that make sense? This is supported by the source. I've been to some Javanese museums, and indeed there were some cannons that have personal names like Nyai (Madam) Such-and-Such and considered special in someway. According to this Indonesian news report, the cannon Nyai Setomi mentioned in the article is still considered heirloom of the Surakarta royal family today, and in 2011 just cleaning it requires a special ceremony that was reported in the newspaper. HaEr48 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes perfect sense to me. Now supporting. A fine article. Looks as if you have put a lot of time and work in - and got a solid result. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for review, Gog the Mild. I also think it reads better now. Especially, with more context in the background section, as you suggested. HaEr48 (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased that you thought my suggestions worthwhile. Do feel free to have a look at one of my ACRs: Siege of Berwick (1333) and Battle of Neville's Cross . Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: A minor item: "On 3 November, Hurdt and Amangkurat were joined by an additional column led by Willem Bastinck from Surabaya, accompanied by 800 ox-carts carrying supplies." The cites after this aren't in number order, which ideally they should be. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

Really interesting article, we don't often get articles from this time and place at Milhist ACR. A few comments from me:

  • in the opening sentence of the lead, state where the campaign occurred, as it begs the question
  • also in the lead, suggest "Javanese chronicles known as babads" to dispense with the parens
  • suggest "at Gegodog in 1676" to dispense with the parens
  • "the Amangkurat"
  • the Kking, and which king, Amangkurat I or the Dutch one? King should be decapitalised throughout unless used as "King Amangkurat I"
  • The capitalization was suggested by Gog the Mild. It did look weird to me in the beginning, but according to WP:JOBTITLE it should be capitalized "when a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II", so I think it applies to this case. Also there is no mention of other "king" being involved in this campaign, I think it's safe to say "the King" for Amangkurat? HaEr48 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it appears I am in error here. The clarification that we are talking about Amangkurat I, not the Dutch king is still needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speelman became director-general replacing van Goens" should this be Governor-General? Otherwise, what role was this?
  • No, it is another post in the VOC (Governor-general is the top post, director-general seems quite an important post as well but lower than Gov. general) HaEr48 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "in the Makassar War from 1666 to 1669" to dispense with the parens and conform to MOS:DATERANGE
  • I feel the parentheses in this case isn't so undesirable and also allowed by MOS:DATERANGE. HaEr48 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Trunajaya also built fortifications along the Brantas, particularly on the eastern side of the river where Kediri also stood."
  • suggest "whose allegiance was wavering, and whose help and followers Mataram and the VOC hoped to enlist."
  • did each column include both VOC and Mataram forces, or only the middle one?
  • The sources don't say, unfortunately. I'll just keep it as is to avoid speculating. HaEr48 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • it might be helpful to call them the eastern, western and central columns to help the reader keep track using the map
  • suggest "in the [[Solo River|Semanggi (now Solo) River]] valley." to dispense with the parens
  • Done, although it also creates another parentheses HaEr48 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "marched along the eastern route towards Kediri"
  • Not needed anymore because the sentence now starts with "the eastern column". HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Hurdt wanted to stay in the Semanggi River valley", as we generally use the placenames at the time, rather than modern ones
  • "Amangkurat's forces dropped to about 1,000, while the VOC had 1,750 soldiers left, 659 of them Europeans." is a repetition of the earlier info, suggest dropping it from the earlier info and showing the development of the numbers through the chronology rather than up-front
  • suggest "were joined by the eastern column led by Willem Bastinck"
  • This is an additional column (not one of the three that initially marched from central Java). HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under the command of Captain Tack" as he's already been introduced, this recurs later
  • Should Evacuation actually be Withdrawal?
  • "Trunajaya and his retinue waswere still at large"
  • "Raden Kajoran" should just be Kajoran at this point
  • there is a footnote to Andaya 1981 but this is not listed in the Bibliography.
  • Schrieke needs an OCLC, you can find it here

That's me done. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for your review, please see above I've responded to them. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Kediri_campaign_(1678)&oldid=864464169"