Wikipedia:Peer review/Philippines/archive2

Philippines
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this article to GA, A, or maybe even FA status. It is hoped a peer review aside from helping to improve the article will give a reality check on what is achievable. I have made extensive revisions since the last time this topic came up for a GA nomination, strengthening the reference area and editing to make the language flow better. Any input would be appreciated.
 * Previous peer review

Thank you very much. — Lambanog (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I will be pleased to review such an attractive-looking article. It may be a few days before I can provide detailed comments on the text, but meantime there are a few general issues:'
 * There are several links to disambiguation pages. Use the link in the box in the top right corner of this page to identify and remedy these.
 * Ref [58]: the link to the online source is marked as a deadlink Note: now [57] Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit of alt text needs to be written.
 * Although the pictures are in general wonderful, I am wondering whether 30+ is possibly a few too many. There is s feel of clutter in places; sometimes text is squeezed between images on left and right, contrary to MOS

I will return with a full review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Further comments Although quite absorbing to someone with very little knowledge of Philippines history, the article has significant prose and punctuation problems, some of which I have fixed. It could do with a top-to-bottom copyedit from an uninvolved editor. Here are some specific points requiring attention:-
 * Infobox: the location map is unhelpful to anyone trying to establish the location of the Philippines. Where is the "green" referred to in the caption?
 * Lead: the final sentence is confusing, and grammatically suspect. Basically it needs to be two sentences, separating the specific overthrow of Marcos from the underlying institutional weakneses. What, exactly, are these institutional weaknesses?
 * Etymology
 * The sentence beginning: "Eventually, the..." has structural and punctuation problems
 * "The official name of the Philippines changed throughout the course of its history." Rephrase: "The official name of the Philippines has changed several times in the course of the country's history."
 * "...the name Philippines began to appear, a name that has become its common name.[15] The official name..." Note four instances of "name" in rapid succession. Rewording needed, to avoid this repetition.
 * History
 * General points:
 * The section would be easier to follow if divided into subsections, dealing for example with (a) the pre-Spanish period, (b) the Spanish period and (c) the American period. The postwar history of the Philippines as an independent country probably needs a full section of its own; at the moment, for example, the information on the Marcos period seems very superficial, contained basically in a single sentence: "By using political divisions, the tension of the Cold War, and the specter of communist rebellion and Islamic insurgency as justifications, he was able to govern by decree." We need some narrative on what was happening in the country, in the years between 1972 and 1983.
 * there is an over-reliance on links rather than explanations of specialist terms
 * "In 1965, Ferdinand Marcos was elected president, his wife Imelda Marcos at his side." Is the second half of the sentence necessary, bearing in mind there are no further references to Imelda in the article?
 * Important statements are uncited, e.g. in the latter part of the seventh paragraph and sentences the final paragraph of the section.
 * Example of an awkwardly constructed sentence: "This led to the People Power Revolution instigated when long time Marcos allies Armed Forces of the Philippines Vice Chief-of-Staff Fidel V. Ramos and Secretary of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile resigned, withdrew their support, and barricaded themselves in Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame". The descriptions of the two rebels are are far too long and the sentence loses its meaning. Try something like "This led to the People Power Revolution, instigated when two long-time Marcos allies—Army Vice Chief-of-Staff Fidel V. Ramos and Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile—resigned and barricaded themselves in Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame respectively." (I think "withdrew their support" can be deduced)

This is as far as I can take it for the present, but there is sufficient here for you to get busy on. I shall be interested to see your response. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lambanog: Let me start off by thanking you for agreeing to review the article! It's quite large and hopefully not too daunting to review in great detail. I will try to address and incorporate your concerns and suggestions. I will elaborate on some of the points you have made so you have additional background as to why the article has developed as it has.


 * It's a country article so editors have been trying to follow the the format and outline recommended in WP:COUNTRIES. Adding subheadings to the history section was done before but I noticed it had the unfortunate effect of encouraging the addition of more and more information making the section disproportionately large in comparison to other sections. Country articles have a tendency to grow large and this one has already grown close to 130kb.  100kb is recommended.  In some ways I'm a little concerned the history section is too detailed.  The featured article on India for example has a history section that is very cogent although that is probably too spare in the view of the editors working on this article.   The history section also seems to be a lightning rod for controversy.  It seems as if over 80% of editorial disagreements are about the section.  Changes can be made since I think all editors are interested in seeing the article improved but I'm wary of introducing or opening the door too much to new material or going beyond copyediting lest it touch off another edit war.  I'll see what I can come up with.


 * Too include Imelda or not to? Maybe she could be cut but it would probably be fair to say that she and her 3000 pairs of shoes are as (in)famous as her husband.  She was also Governor of Manila, Minister of Human Settlements, and a special envoy.  In my view though, more important in relation to this article, is that she in her person probably exemplifies the nepotism, cronyism, and kleptocracy of the Marcos years and the absolute disconnect or dichotomy between brutal reality and farcical fantasy that characterizes many aspects of Philippine culture and politics. I think some mention of her is needed.

Will work on this but will have to do so later since I'll be busy for much of the day. Thank you again. Lambanog (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)