Talk:Political history of the Philippines

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Political history of the Philippines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 21:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I can take a look at this! Please be somewhat patient with me, as it is a long article, but I promise I'll be as thorough and quick as I can! — GhostRiver 21:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lede

• Hinduism and Islam are linked here but not in the body; per MOS:OVERLINK, "major examples of religions" generally should not be linked

Pre-Spanish era

• small entities while being part of region-wide trade networks. feels like something is missing after the word "entities"
• "had three classes," → "had three classes:"
• No comma after "Sultanate of Maguindanao"
• "over some Muslims areas" → "over some Muslim areas"

Spanish era

Colonization and governance

• Lowercase "church" refers to a building, capital "Church" refers to the body of the Catholic Church
• Direct Spanish rule remained did not extend far from Manila. confusing syntax
• "lead to greater" → "led to greater"

National awakening and revolution

• "western educational background" → "Western educational background", as we're referring to the Western world
• Ilustrados is inconsistently capitalized through this section
• "including with equality"
• No comma after "Much of the campaigning took place in Madrid"

American era

Conquest and consolidation

• "in a skirmish in Manila" → "with a skirmish in Manila"
• "military and civil governments in Manila" → "military and civil governments there"
• ilustrados is italicized in the third sentence but not really anywhere else
• "Moros were remained concerned"

Development of political institutions

• "with 2 from each" → "with two from each" per MOS:NUM
• "Most were elected, however" → "Most were elected; however,"

Commonwealth era

• "and was adopted on February 1" → "and was adopted the next day"
• Comma after "and vice president"
• All the existing parties to merge into the KALIBAPI, created by Proclamation No. 109 on December 8, 1942, with other parties being banned. Confusing syntax
• KALIBAPI is double-linked in the penultimate paragraph

Independent era

Two-party system

• No comma after "and civil unrest"

Marcos dictatorship

• "who were not Marcos allies" → "not allied with Marcos"
• "However this was seen as largely toothless," → "This was, however, seen as largely toothless,"
• Should link the first mention of "Benigno's widow Corazon" to Corazon Aquino

Post-People Power era

• Sentence should either end here, or there should be a colon rather than a comma: Political reform movements that had grown under Marcos and played a significant role in the revolution lost their strength over the next few years,
• "did not with to run for election again" → "did not wish to run for re-election"
• "Ramos had to face an ongoing energy crisis that had started during the Aquino administration which was resolved when Ramos issued contracts favorable to power producers." → "Ramos, facing an ongoing energy crisis from the Aquino administration, resolved the issue by issuring contracts favorable to power producers."
• "following Estrada being officially charged with "plundering", Estrada's supporters" → "after Estrada was officially charged with "plundering", his supporters"
• However, former president Aquino died, and her son, Benigno Aquino III, overtook Villar in the polls. This sentence comes out of nowhere a little, as the influence of Aquino's death is not immediately clear in the context of Teodoro vs. Villar

References

• There are two: places where headlines should be changed to title case per MOS:ALLCAPS – I'm looking at [19] (A SINGULAR AND A PLURAL FOLK) and 37 (GENERAL AMNESTY FOR THE FILIPINOS)
• This might be a pain in the ass, but establishing a consistent date formatting style would be nice; some are YYYY-MM-DD, some are MDY, and some are DMY

General comments

• No stability concerns in the revision history
• All images are properly licensed and relevant
• Earwig score looks good at just over 12%

Putting on hold for now; please ping me if you have any questions. — GhostRiver 18:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

All suggested changes made. Thanks for the suggestions. CMD (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making those edits, particularly the one about Aquino's son! Knowing that he launched his campaign after his mother's death really puts in an additional piece of clarification. Happy to pass! — GhostRiver 15:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that at one point in its political history, the Philippines was represented in the Spanish Cortes Generales? Source: page 95
  • ALT1:... that as Philippine politics developed new national institutions, traditional Sultanates continued to have influence in the south? Source: page 93
  • ALT2:... that Philippine political history saw a shift from a two-party system to a one-party system, and then to a multi-party system? Source: [1]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Heterotermes aureus

Improved to Good Article status by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 17:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC).

• – The article is new enough (promoted GA on October 14, 2021) and long enough (53,083 characters). It is well cited. Although Earwig's Copyvio detector is not responding for me, good faith is assumed. The article appears neutral. All three hooks are well formatted, cited, and interesting. Leaving it for the promoted to choose the hook. A QPQ has been done. So ... "good to go"! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)