Talk:EDSA/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 08:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

While not part of the criteria, there are disambiguation links and dead external links that can and should be resolved.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I've skimmed through the text briefly, and it needs to be copy edited. There are issues with common nouns appearing capitalized (usually cases where linked words aren't reduced to all lower-case text). There are additional sentences where subject–verb agreement is violated; the subject is singular but the noun is plural or vice versa. There are examples where distances are used as adjectives, but aren't in the adjective form. For example, "The 23.8 kilometres (14.8 mi) portion of the road..." should be "The 23.8-kilometre (14.8 mi) portion of the road..." In terms of layout, headings should be in Sentence case, not Title Case. So "Route Description" should really be "Route description" and so on. The subject of the article should not be repeated in the headings as well. The two junction list tables should be combined together, and although the GA criteria does not require it, that merged table should comply with MOS:RJL. (It does not.) There is inappropriate usage of boldface text, which should be limited to the subject and alternate names in the lead section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Whole sections of the article are unreferenced, which isn't a good thing. Additionally, there is a citation needed tag present. Footnote 7 8 is to a blog, which is not a reliable source. This is a major concern because this is the source used for the origins of the name of the roadway, and the title of the article. It would also be nice, but not required for GA status, to have all of the citations formatting in a consistent style. Footnote 18 is used to source the information about the filming location for The Bourne Legacy, but in digging through the website, I found the production notes which does not specify any more detail than the fact that the movie was filmed in Manilla.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There is an expansion tag present for the "List of notable incidents and accidents along EDSA" section.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is still being updated by the nominator. Over 4K of new wikicode was added while I started this review. Please "finalize" the article to a version you'd like to have reviewed. Otherwise, the article is a bit of a moving target and hard to review.
 * 1) 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):
 * File:Epifanio de los Santos as a young man.jpg to be in "the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years." No author has been given, so I cannot verify the veracity of that claim. File:EDSA Revolution pic1.jpg is a fair-use image without a rationale for usage in this article. The same goes for File:EDSA 2.jpg. fair-use rationales for this article must be provided, or the images must be removed. Additionally, please provide captions for the images in the gallery.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I haven't checked all of the criteria; criteria 3b and 4 are both unchecked. The remainder all fail, and given that someone will have to do research to identify sources for a great majority of the article, I don't believe that the standard seven-day hold period would be enough time. The article should be in decent shape in terms of the research and sourcing before checking the prose since the article could need to be rewritten to accommodate the research. Regrettable, I must fail the nomination at this time.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked all of the criteria; criteria 3b and 4 are both unchecked. The remainder all fail, and given that someone will have to do research to identify sources for a great majority of the article, I don't believe that the standard seven-day hold period would be enough time. The article should be in decent shape in terms of the research and sourcing before checking the prose since the article could need to be rewritten to accommodate the research. Regrettable, I must fail the nomination at this time.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)