# Talk:Dutch pacification campaign on Formosa

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dutch pacification campaign on Formosa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Explaining what an entrepot is, although it is wikilinked at the start of the article, might not be a bad idea. Just so people don't have to click the link to find out.
'The Company decided to ally with the relatively small village of Sinkan, who were able to supply them firewood, venison and fish' - What was it about this particular village that made its inhabitants amenable to alliance? Were they just the nearest, perhaps?
'In 1625 the elders of Sinkan sold some land directly opposite the fortress on the mainland to the Dutch for the sum of fifteen cangans (a kind of cloth), where the new owners then built the town of Sakam' - This is slightly stilted and needs to be rewritten. There's also the fact that the new inhabitants of this land aren't identified, and why this is important for the article. It breaks up the flow between the other two sentences - the Dutch allying with the Sinkan but other reliationships weren't as easy.
'low level warfare' is a bit vague. Can you expand on that?
'but this belief was weakened by a series of incidents from 1625 to 1629' - I think 'between' would be better. Also, this seems to go back on itself; you say the sentence before that the villages were in low-level warfare with the Dutch, then claim in this sentence that some villages were friendly at first. It seems like it should be the reverse, as you go on to describe the incidents that cause relations to sour.
'the Dutch-allied village of Sinkan' - awkwardly worded, especially since you established just a few sentences go it was allied to the Dutch.
'before running to the Dutch to ask for protection from retribution' - slightly POV wording here - you make them sound like little children. I understand what you mean, but rewording it would be ideal.
'but on their return to Formosa the Sinkan villagers, along with their erstwhile foes from Mattau, Bakloan and Soulang' - Do we know why they suddenly became the best of friends to turn on the Dutch, after a long period of rivalry?
'Soon after, the Japanese disappeared from the picture' - Any reason why?
'In 1629 however the Dutch were unable to defend themeselves, let alone their allies' - Spelling error, and also seems rather POV; I can see why you've put it there, to lead into the next bit, but it definitely needs rewording. And I understand that it may be because of rapidly-shifting native allegiances, but the bouncing back and forth of the Sinkan being alliers, then demanding funds from the Dutch, and then being allies again seems confusing. Is there any way to reorder this?
'Governor Nuyts went to Mattau with a guard of sixty musketeers' - Why did they suddenly turn on the Dutch? Was it simply the build-up of frustration when the Governor had snubbed then? And, more importantly, why did the Governor suddenly visit them?
'Governor Putmans, who arrived shortly after the massacre of the sixty Dutch soldiers' - This is rather abrupt. Did he replace the previous Governor? If so, why?
'Therefore the Dutch moved against Bakloan' - why the Bakloan?
'the Company was happy to see divisions among the villages, divisions which it felt it could exploit' - repetition here.
'Potential disaster averted in Sinkan, the Dutch were further encouraged' - missing words there :)
'native warriors from the Dutch-allied village Sinkan' - I don't think this needs mentioning, especially as in the previous sentence you state Sinkan was under Dutch control once again
'This time the Governor decided to use the carrot rather than the stick, offering gifts and assurances of friendship, with the consequences of resistance left implicit' - I assume the Dutch were successful, but this is a rather abrupt ending - stating whether they were or not would be ideal.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
'and an alliance with Sinkan put the Dutch at odds with the foes of that village.' - citation needed.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

A good article, although it needs some work on it before I can promote it to GA. Still, it's primarily prose work, and you should be commended for expanding on an area of history that's only recently been covered by historians, and is barely covered at all on en.wikipedia. Skinny87 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article - I'll get to fixing the points raised next week when I have time to attack it properly. Taiwantaffy (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


### Addressing points raised in the review
Explaining what an entrepot is, although it is wikilinked at the start of the article, might not be a bad idea. Just so people don't have to click the link to find out.
Added an explanation.
'The Company decided to ally with the relatively small village of Sinkan, who were able to supply them firewood, venison and fish' - What was it about this particular village that made its inhabitants amenable to alliance? Were they just the nearest, perhaps?
Yes, the nearest - clarified.
'In 1625 the elders of Sinkan sold some land directly opposite the fortress on the mainland to the Dutch for the sum of fifteen cangans (a kind of cloth), where the new owners then built the town of Sakam' - This is slightly stilted and needs to be rewritten. There's also the fact that the new inhabitants of this land aren't identified, and why this is important for the article. It breaks up the flow between the other two sentences - the Dutch allying with the Sinkan but other reliationships weren't as easy.
Repositioned and rewritten.
'low level warfare' is a bit vague. Can you expand on that?
Expanded and explained - low-level warfare was between the villages, not the villages and the Dutch.
'but this belief was weakened by a series of incidents from 1625 to 1629' - I think 'between' would be better. Also, this seems to go back on itself; you say the sentence before that the villages were in low-level warfare with the Dutch, then claim in this sentence that some villages were friendly at first. It seems like it should be the reverse, as you go on to describe the incidents that cause relations to sour.
The above clarified point helps with this one - changed the flow as you suggested.
'the Dutch-allied village of Sinkan' - awkwardly worded, especially since you established just a few sentences go it was allied to the Dutch.
Simplified.
'before running to the Dutch to ask for protection from retribution' - slightly POV wording here - you make them sound like little children. I understand what you mean, but rewording it would be ideal.
Definitely sounds POV - changed "running" to "turning".
'but on their return to Formosa the Sinkan villagers, along with their erstwhile foes from Mattau, Bakloan and Soulang' - Do we know why they suddenly became the best of friends to turn on the Dutch, after a long period of rivalry?
Not really - the Formosan villages existed in a state of continually shifting alliances, and I imagine they saw benefit in banding together at that point against the Dutch - but nowhere in the sources is this made clear.
'Soon after, the Japanese disappeared from the picture' - Any reason why?
Sakoku - added reason and wikilink.
'In 1629 however the Dutch were unable to defend themeselves, let alone their allies' - Spelling error, and also seems rather POV; I can see why you've put it there, to lead into the next bit, but it definitely needs rewording. And I understand that it may be because of rapidly-shifting native allegiances, but the bouncing back and forth of the Sinkan being alliers, then demanding funds from the Dutch, and then being allies again seems confusing. Is there any way to reorder this?
POV wording and spelling error addressed. Above that section it is stated that the Sinkanders were frustrated with the Dutch inability to protect them - they were also out (like the other villages, and the Dutch) to get the best deal possible out of the situation - which meant pressing the Dutch when they were weak, and holding back when the Dutch were strong.
'Governor Nuyts went to Mattau with a guard of sixty musketeers' - Why did they suddenly turn on the Dutch? Was it simply the build-up of frustration when the Governor had snubbed then? And, more importantly, why did the Governor suddenly visit them?
The Governor's visit was not sudden - he often toured the villages. The motives for the Mattauers' attack are not known - the available primary sources were written by the Dutch, who did not speculate as to why (just sticking to calling it "callous treachery" and the like).
'Governor Putmans, who arrived shortly after the massacre of the sixty Dutch soldiers' - This is rather abrupt. Did he replace the previous Governor? If so, why?
Yes, he replaced Nuyts, who was recalled after badly bungling company relations with Japan.
'Therefore the Dutch moved against Bakloan' - why the Bakloan?
They were believed to have sheltered Mattauers in the wake of the massacre.
'the Company was happy to see divisions among the villages, divisions which it felt it could exploit' - repetition here.
Fixed.
'Potential disaster averted in Sinkan, the Dutch were further encouraged' - missing words there :)
No missing words, though a little poetic, perhaps. Made more explicit.
'native warriors from the Dutch-allied village Sinkan' - I don't think this needs mentioning, especially as in the previous sentence you state Sinkan was under Dutch control once again
Agreed; removed.
'This time the Governor decided to use the carrot rather than the stick, offering gifts and assurances of friendship, with the consequences of resistance left implicit' - I assume the Dutch were successful, but this is a rather abrupt ending - stating whether they were or not would be ideal.
A fair point - I've clarified the result in the article.
Taiwantaffy (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly satisfied with everything you've done. Passed! Skinny87 (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)