Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Philippines/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Raul654 06:50, 3 January 2011 [1].
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was Delisted by Raul654 (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
History of the Philippines[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
History of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Wtmitchell, Gubernatoria, TheCoffee, WP Tambayan Philippines, WP Southeast Asia
I am nominating this featured article for review because:
- Quite a few little spots that need references, because they are potentially controversial or include statistics or extraordinary claims. For example, the last sentence of the Administration of Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957) subsection, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Martial law section and the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the Fourth Republic section. These are just examples, there are quite a few other unsourced spots.
- There are several unreliable source tags that need to be addressed or the references removed.
- What makes ref #16 (Cembrano, Margarita R) a reliable ref? It appears to be a self-published geocities website
- What makes ref #22 (The Kingdom of Namayan and Maytime Fiesta in Sta. Ana of new Manila) a reliable source? It is a self-published blog.
- What makes ref #51 (Tomas L) a reliable source. It appears to be a self-published geocities website.
- Ref #29 (明史) should indicate what language it is in. Also, what makes it reliable?
- The lead is huge. Even for an article of this length, four paragraphs is plenty, per WP:LEAD.
- The "Upcoming Administration section" needs to be either renamed and expanded or combined with the previous one. A section header and orphaned link tell the reader nothing.
- The reference formatting needs work. Many web refs are missing publishers, authors and access dates.
- A couple of book refs are missing page numbers. A few have their long ref format in the notes section, rather than the references section.
- Mix of British and American spellings (both recognize and recognise, for example)
- One dead link and one dab page
- Lots of really short paragraphs. These should be combined where possible in order to make the article flow better. Lots of short sections too, especially towards the end of the article. Could some of these be combined in order to let the article flow and shorten the TOC?
- Further information templates should not be in the middle of the section as they are in the Administration of Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992) section.
I have tried to put the most important issues towards the top of the list. Dana boomer (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Featured article criteria of concern include referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - No major work has happened on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Above concerns not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 10:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.