Wikipedia:Peer review/2009 flu pandemic in the Philippines/archive1

2009 swine flu outbreak in the Philippines

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it seems it has some grammar inconsistencies, etc.

Thanks,  The Wandering Traveler WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!  08:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Since this is about a current event the article is in a state of flux and cannot be considered to be stable. I am not sure what the purpose of this peer review is, as this seems a long way from GA or FA (which require an article to be stable anyway, regardless of other shortcomings). Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LEAD and make the lead an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but I am not sure that is the case here.
 * The lead is also needlessly repetitive (we are told the dates of arrival and diagnosis of the initial patient twice each) and I am not sure what the quote adds to the lead (I would add it to the Confirmation section instead). I also note the lead is currently over a week out of date (lead is As of June 10, but right now it is June 18 on Wiki).
 * The article uses cquote but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use blockquote instead.
 * Define all abbreviations on first use - it took me a while to figure out what the RITM was, for example.
 * The maps do not have a date in the caption and so are unclear - when was the data represented in the maps obtained? What time frame do they represent?
 * Language is really unclear in places - I have almost no clue what this sentence means In line with this, the Manila Archbishop ordered the continuation of earlier commanded Oratio Imperata On H1N1, revisioning the obligatory prayer from its original version-centered on the virus-infected country of Mexico. I think it means the Catholic church decided to pray for other flu-infected countries in addition to Mexico?
 * Lots of places need to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
 * The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections which impede the flow of the text. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded. Part of this is due to the nature of the events covered in the article - as news occurrs, a sentence or two is added in a new paragraph or section.
 * Article needs more references, for example During the Mass for the 5th anniversary of Pondo ng Pinoy at the Xavier School gymnasium in Greenhills, San Juan, the directive was announced before the start of the celebration of the Eucharist. has no ref - and why is this notable / worth including here? My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V