Talk:Philippines/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now read through the article a couple of times and it appears to be at or about GA-level. As such, I will not be "quick failing" this article. I will now continue with a detailed review. As this is a comprehensive article, its going to take several days to review it. Its also worth noting, that at this stage I will be mostly reporting "problems". This does not imply that the article is bad: the first stage is to identify problems (and if necessary get them resolved) and the second stage is the review comments and sentencing. Pyrotec (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Etymology & History -

• These two sections appear to be generally compliant.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Politics and government -

• Generally OK. However:

• Ref 62 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. [ca. 2009]. "Japan's ODA Data by Country". http://www.mofa.go.jp/POLICY/oda/data/01ap_ea02.html. Retrieved 2010-01-05.) appears to be a dead web link, and

– Updated reference. Lambanog (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• there is some WP:Overlinking, for example there are multiple links in this section for Cold war, War on terror, provinces (and possibly others).

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

....Sorry for the delay; I will restart the review tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An apparently-comprehensive, well-illustrated, well-referenced, article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   There is a bit too much WP:Overlinking. I've removed some of it during my review, but more could be taken out.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this arrticle GA-status.

Congratulations on producing a comprehensive well-illustrated and referenced article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)