Talk:Philippines/GA2

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

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


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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)