Talk:Philippine Revolution/GA1

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

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 03:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 03:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Valid maintenance templates and citation needed tags:
 * Two CN tags
 * Top of article has a notice for rewrite and cleanup
 * Liberalism (1869-1871) cites no sources, and there is a template to remind
 * Rise of Filipino nationalism cites no sources, and has a template for that and factual accuracy
 * Criollo insurgencies is lacking in citations, as specified in the template
 * La Solidaridad, La Liga Filipina and the Propaganda Movement is lacking in citations, as specified in the template


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS| for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Quickfail under #3 of the QF criteria. Sorry, the article lacks citations completely in several sections, as well as partially in other sections. There are valid tags, as well as numerous ref, cleanup, and rewrite tags. The prose is problematic, with MOS and NPOV concerns, in addition to reading like a poor translation in need of a rewrite and copyedit by a native English speaker. I recommend addressing the citation issues, getting it copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors, and then renominating.   TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 03:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Quickfail under #3 of the QF criteria. Sorry, the article lacks citations completely in several sections, as well as partially in other sections. There are valid tags, as well as numerous ref, cleanup, and rewrite tags. The prose is problematic, with MOS and NPOV concerns, in addition to reading like a poor translation in need of a rewrite and copyedit by a native English speaker. I recommend addressing the citation issues, getting it copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors, and then renominating.   TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 03:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quickfail under #3 of the QF criteria. Sorry, the article lacks citations completely in several sections, as well as partially in other sections. There are valid tags, as well as numerous ref, cleanup, and rewrite tags. The prose is problematic, with MOS and NPOV concerns, in addition to reading like a poor translation in need of a rewrite and copyedit by a native English speaker. I recommend addressing the citation issues, getting it copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors, and then renominating.   TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 03:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quickfail under #3 of the QF criteria. Sorry, the article lacks citations completely in several sections, as well as partially in other sections. There are valid tags, as well as numerous ref, cleanup, and rewrite tags. The prose is problematic, with MOS and NPOV concerns, in addition to reading like a poor translation in need of a rewrite and copyedit by a native English speaker. I recommend addressing the citation issues, getting it copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors, and then renominating.   TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 03:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)