Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Early history of Gowa and Talloq

Early history of Gowa and Talloq

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 9, 2019 by Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The early history of Gowa and Talloq began around 1300 when the Makassar kingdom of Gowa emerged as an agrarian chiefdom in the Indonesian peninsula of South Sulawesi. Talloq was founded two centuries later when a Gowa prince fled to the coast after his defeat in a succession dispute. The coastal location of the new polity allowed it to exploit maritime trade to a greater degree than Gowa. The growth of early Gowa was supported by a rapid increase in wet rice cultivation. Verdant forests were cleared to make way for rice paddies. The population may have increased tenfold between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. Gowa and Talloq became close allies in the sixteenth century and dominated most of the peninsula, following wide-ranging administrative and military reforms. Around 1600 the twin kingdoms converted to Islam, defeated their rivals and became the most important powers in eastern Indonesia, with Fort Somba Opu (pictured) as one of their centers. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): no recent article about South Sulawesi; 1678 Kediri campaign (also about Indonesia) ran on July 2019, but for a country as big as Indonesia I think twice a year is still an under-representation. HaEr48 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Main editors: Karaeng Matoaya, Masjawad99, HaEr48
Promoted: August 2019
Reasons for nomination: 9 November is the traditional anniversary of Makassar, the city that is highly related to this article.
Support as nominator. HaEr48 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good and well-timed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fine article, and the topic makes a nice change of pace. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While not a disqualifier, I counted 20 red links in the article, which seems a little high for an FA. Are all of those topics which could plausibly sustain an article? (see Wikipedia:Red link) – Reidgreg (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Reidgreg: I gave this one a fairly good going over at FAC and it seemed solid. It didn't seem to have too many red links at the time, but relooking at it I see what you mean. Having got to know the topic, and having had to dig into some of the red links for the review, there are 14 which I am happy are legitimate, 1 which I am doubtful over - it seems marginal - and 5 which I don't know enough about to have an opinion. In other words, good point, but I am cautiously optimistic that the number is acceptable. Of course, other points of view are available. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: It's a good observation. I've reduced some of them by creating stubs and removing unsustainable links, but as Gog said most of them are legitimate - it's just that many of the monarchs in this time and place (who are notable enough to merit their own article) do not have their articles created yet. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Maybe this TFA will draw a little more editor attention to an under-represented subject. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]