Talk:Philippine resistance against Japan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 14:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few comments:
 * Five citations for one point seems too much.
 * Which long cite does cite #12 point to?
 * Standardize hyphens in the isbns.
 * Expand the contractions "wasn't" and "doesn't".
 * two "citation needed" tags should be fixed.
 * No need to link s google books preview in a Seperate link
 * Several duplicate links need to be worked upon.
 * Why is the same license repeated twice in second image's fair use?
 * Which long cite does cite #12 point to?
 * Standardize hyphens in the isbns.
 * Expand the contractions "wasn't" and "doesn't".
 * two "citation needed" tags should be fixed.
 * No need to link s google books preview in a Seperate link
 * Several duplicate links need to be worked upon.
 * Why is the same license repeated twice in second image's fair use?

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Extend
Sorry for the late reply, but please extend the time before failing the article. it's been sometime before someone takes it up to review it, but it seems my schedule is stretched. Can you please extend it maybe for just another week please... Bulls123 (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be postponing it another week.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Starting to edit the article. Give me a few days. Bulls123 (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed
I've already finished fixing some stuff. Anything else? Maybe some parts I've missed just point em out Good Sir. Bulls123 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's still a lot of duplicate links left.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ahehe. Sorry my bad. I must have mistaken what that one was. But I've already fixed it sir. Also added some better references as well. Bulls123 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Passing, Well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This passed?! I can see tense issues ("also have their own groups of guerrillas fighting the Japanese invaders", "also occurred much in Leyte before the arrival of..." and clumsy grammar ("The Japanese were vigilant of the resistance", " guerrilla units, of which Ramon Magsaysay was included", "benefited from the bill but only the Philippines were not allowed to be granted by such..") and typos ( "the safety and aide of the civilians ") sufficient to doubt that it was properly read through. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I passed the wrong review and I'll be nominating for a community reassessment.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Problems listed above and other grammatical problems I found have been fixed. Just tell me if I missed some so I can fix it too. Bulls123 (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it seems every time I read a bit I spot something. The answer is to pick a section and read it and move on once you are sure it does say what you think it says, and that a naïve reader would also understand it that way. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)