Talk:Philippines/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The manual of style appears to be followed for the most part, but the article could use a good, thorough copyedit by someone familiar with English grammar. I've been fixing a few of the more obvious things, but it would help if additional people could provide more eyes on it. The lead section is also a bit short, and should be expanded. Please see WP:LEAD for advice here. One other issue: "This would inspire a Propaganda Movement in Spain, organized by expatriate patriots" -- what exactly is an "expatriate patriot"?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See 'citation needed' tags in article. Also, it would help if full citation information was added to references -- author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL retrieved -- even for sources that are websites. Include as much information as you can, so that if the link disappears, the information can still be attributed to the source and can be verified through offline means if necessary.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Most of the major topics are covered, but there are a couple of areas that need additional work -- see the 'dubious' tags in the article, and the notes attached to them. I would recommend moving the 'education' subsection out of 'demographics' and into its own main section, as it doesn't really fit with demographics too much. I would also recommend adding more about higher education institutions. This statement, "The general pattern of formal education follows six stages" seems to be a generalization, and not cited. One issue here is that grad education and adult education are not part of formal education and, in fact, optional.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The 'international relations' section seems to be a bit "overly optimistic", covering mostly positive relations with other nations. For example, it cites "optimistic" relations with middle eastern countries, but doesn't go into details on any issues that might be there. I think this could be expanded.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Recent edit warring resulting in page protection by Yellowmonkey on July 7, 2009. I would like to see this article's page protection removed to see if the edit warring truly subsides, because there still appears to be some recent comments on the talk page that could result in more issues.

6. 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):

   There appear to be copyright issues looking at the file description for the El nido.jpg image. There is no copyright tag on Jeepney Benz.jpg. There is a personality rights warning tag on the image Sepak takraw.jpg.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   As an additional comment, and I wouldn't hold this up at GAN, but I find it curious that the infobox has an entry for which side of the road citizens drive on. This seems rather minimally notable, if at all,... Really strange? But, I guess editors are just going with the infobox, so there,... ;-)

Overall, I think the main sections contained in the article are good, and there's a very good framework. Editors are doing a good job in sticking with the manual of style. However, due to the rather poor quality of prose and intense copy editing needed, as well as the page protection currently in place, and the numerous image issues, I don't think the article meets the Good Article criteria and cannot be listed at this time. I'd like to see page protection removed for at least a month or two before reconsideration for GA, to make sure that the article doesn't degrade into a serious edit war. In the meantime, I would recommend focusing on the copy editing and citation issues.

As an additional note, I likely would have put this on hold instead if it wasn't for the page protection currently in place. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with removing the page protection is that the article is vandalized often. Last recent unprotection history

Also based on the number of protection logs for the article, unprotecting it does not some like a good idea. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why not just revert the edits when you suspect vandalism? Is it because the users are so self conscious of their online image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.179.231 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)