Wikipedia:Peer review/Oblation Run/archive1

Oblation Run edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this has recently been promoted to GA and I am very interested to help this get to FA. Among the primary concerns are the inconsistent histories published by several reliable sources (Associated Press, APO's own website, several Philippine newspapers).

Thanks, Moray An Par (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

I am not sure that the lead follows WP:LEAD. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the name "Ritual Dance of the Brave" and the Tagalog translation of the name of the play as "Naked Hero" are only in the lead, and need to be repeated in the body of the article.
I would start the History section with a little more background. I would include a sentence that says the UP was founded in YEAR and as of 2011 has seven campuses. I would also include a sentence on APO's founding date in the UP system. Then I would include one or two sentences on the Oblation statue, including its original year (1939), the fact that it is a nude male statue (though now covered with a fig leaf), and that it is on every UP campus and seen as a symbol of the university. This would be one paragraph.
I would then have some sort of blanket statement along the lines that while sources disagree on many of the details, they all (or almost all agree) that the Oblation Run started in 1977 on the UP Diliman campus to promote the play Hubad na Bayani (Tagalog for Naked Hero). Then I would go into the details of the different accounts.
It seems to me that the film vs. play should be fairly easy to figure out - films are more major and I owuld think there should be some place to find out if there was ever a Filipino film of this name produced (my guess is it is just an error, and it was a play). So the source could be cited and then some sort of statement that the BIG SOURCE OF PHILLIPINE FILMS (or whatever) lists no such film could follow.
The article is geographically fuzzy - for example the location of the naked women protestors is not stated in the article that I can see.
There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs in the article which interrupt the flow of the article's prose. They should be combined with others or perhaps expanded wherever possible.
Problem sentence in several ways Women participating in the event, however, is not unheard of.[7] First off, having read the article, there were only two women who ran along one year and the APO organizers made it very clear that they were not participating officially. The other problem is that I checked the reference and there is NO (zero) mention of the women running in that reference.
The lead does not need generally references as it is a summary of the article and the refs are supposed to be there. The exceptions are direct quotations and extraordinary statements in the lead.
Nitpicky point, but references should be in numerical order.
Was the Centennial Run in addition to the regular run that year - this is unclear.
The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} or a {{quote box}} instead.
In Criticism what was the outcome of Pimentel's call for investigation? I would also include the year for the various criticisms - when was the Catholic criticism, for example?
Once these other points have been addressed, I would get a copyedit - WP:WIAFA 1a is a professional level of English. This is the most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet - the language here is decent, but not great.
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Your concerns have been addressed. As for the status of the Oblation run after Pimentel's outcry, it's very much obvious that it still continuous today. I was unable to research on its aftermath. It seems that he just complained and no actual investigation precipitated. I will request a copy-edit once this peer review gets done. Thank you again. Moray An Par (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Centennial Run seems to be extraordinary of the usual run. How do I indicate this? Moray An Par (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it seems clear that the run continues, it would be interesting to know for sure if there was no investigation, or if there was one that went nowhere, or whatever happened. Assuming that the run is annual with extra runs for special occasions (and there are refs to back this up), I would say something like "While the Oblation Run is typically held each year on DATE, additional runs are sometimes held. For example, in YEAR, a special Centennial Run with 100 members was held to celebrate the 100th anniversary of..." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I really can't find anything regarding its aftermath. It's a privilege speech and not an actual senate proceeding. Moray An Par (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if there is nothing to be found, then there is nothing to be found. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]