Talk:Imelda Marcos/GA3
GA Reassessment edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Currently this article fails the Good article criteria, particularly 2: Verifiable, with no original research. There are far too many citations to books that are missing page numbers, and one section ("A way to fame") that has no citations at all. In addition, someone else has tagged the "Role in Ferdinand Marcos's 1965 presidential campaign" section as {{too long}} so you probably need to split that into subsections. I don't know how long a typical reassessment period lasts, so let's say two weeks. If these issues are not addressed by 17 November 2018 (UTC) then the article will be delisted from GA status. —howcheng {chat} 03:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- GA is more lax when it comes to various issues, such as giving exact page ranges, than FAC, but of course, can't hurt to add. As for a section being "too long", well, that's pretty subjective. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- That was added by Alternativity, who may want to weigh in on this. However, I notice that you had brought up the lack of page numbers in the previous assessment, to which Imeldific claimed "Done", but apparently it never was. —howcheng {chat} 03:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hehe, that makes me fear that my brain has deteriorated since in more than one way... I'd still question whether it warrants demotion because of that, but in any case, it is best to have the numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- To be honest, I've wanted to do work on this article for a long time now, but I was building up a familiarity with the literature on Imelda Marcos. Looking at the {{too long}} tag more closely, I just realized that I should have tagged it with undue weight instead. (If it's under review like this, is it okay to change the tag?) Simply, the section is far too long in comparison to other, better-documented sections. My personal take is that if there's any reason this page should be demoted from GA, it's the lack of coverage of key topics, such as the cases in the US, the plunder cases filed the Presidential Commission on Good Government, and so on. (That's a big "so on", which is why I wanted to do more reading) There's a lot of work that needs to be done to be able to correct for these ommissions while retaining WP:NPOV. I'm sort of glad this review is happening because I'm hoping it'll bring up the things in the article that need work. - Alternativity (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- * Replacement of tag in 1965 Campaign section - I've gone on and revised the tag that was in the Imelda_Marcos#Role_in_Ferdinand_Marcos's_1965_presidential_campaign section. I retained the date of the old tag since I simply put in the wrong tag by mistake, but this can be changed to a newer date if that's a more appropriate procedure.- Alternativity (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- * New section on court cases, plus cleanup template - I've discovered that one of the paragraphs subsumed under the vague heading "power struggle" actually mentions one of the court cases, but only one of them. So I've subsumed that paragraph under a new section, and then added a cleanup template indicating there are multiple unmentioned casees.- Alternativity (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- * Breakup of ″Power struggle″ into two further subsections - The section previously titled ″Power struggle″ was vaguely titled to the point of obfuscation, so I separated it into two sections: ″Ninoy Aquino assassination″ (which covers the events of August 1983 and their immediate aftermath; I should add that although there were notable ″power struggles″ between Imelda and other figures in the late 70s, that's not what the text actually describes) and ″EDSA Revolution, ouster, and exile″ (1986 and onward). I also added cleanup templates because these sections have great historical significance, as acknowledged in most academic texts on the Marcos administration. - Alternativity (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: I'd argue that any yellow-level or higher maintenance tag is enough to warrant delisting. Since I would be justified in putting {{Page numbers needed}} on it, a whole bunch of {{page needed}} tags is functionally equivalent. @Alternativity: I think it's fine to change the tag. The goal here is to get the article quality back up to GA standards, so we should do whatever is necessary to that end. —howcheng {chat} 20:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- To be honest, I've wanted to do work on this article for a long time now, but I was building up a familiarity with the literature on Imelda Marcos. Looking at the {{too long}} tag more closely, I just realized that I should have tagged it with undue weight instead. (If it's under review like this, is it okay to change the tag?) Simply, the section is far too long in comparison to other, better-documented sections. My personal take is that if there's any reason this page should be demoted from GA, it's the lack of coverage of key topics, such as the cases in the US, the plunder cases filed the Presidential Commission on Good Government, and so on. (That's a big "so on", which is why I wanted to do more reading) There's a lot of work that needs to be done to be able to correct for these ommissions while retaining WP:NPOV. I'm sort of glad this review is happening because I'm hoping it'll bring up the things in the article that need work. - Alternativity (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hehe, that makes me fear that my brain has deteriorated since in more than one way... I'd still question whether it warrants demotion because of that, but in any case, it is best to have the numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- That was added by Alternativity, who may want to weigh in on this. However, I notice that you had brought up the lack of page numbers in the previous assessment, to which Imeldific claimed "Done", but apparently it never was. —howcheng {chat} 03:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Howcheng: and @FunkMonk:, hi. I just want to flag that this is about to become (if it hasn't already become) a high traffic article due to the subject being convicted on seven corruption charges a couple of hours ago. I had earlier noted that the section on court cases needs expansion, and I'm working on that. Also, I also just realized that the entire section titled "First Lady" was skewed to the positive because the subheading "projects during", which results in text which describes projects within the time period described. A heading titled "roles during..." or "public life during..." would result in a less-skewed narrative. But that's a lot of work and I need to brace myself a bit before I dive into that. Not sure what that implies for this GA review since I don't normally involve myself in these. But I thought it was important to mention. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, well in the case where significant developments happen after an article has been promoted, and the original nominator isn't around anymore, I guess there isn't much to do unless someone else takes it up. One of the reasons why I usually refrain from reviewing articles about living people... Too much inherent instability. In any case, yes, it was a bit suspect that the original nominator was called "Imeldific", and I'd just like to make clear that I have no horse in the race when it comes to the subject matter. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Given the current state of the article, I fully support a demotion. It is Start Class, no higher. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I must concur. A lot of work is going into the article right now, but I have no sense of whether or not it'll get up to the standards needed for a GA. - Alternativity (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
For sure it is not GA with the overall negativity in lede (WP:BLP violation) and the excessive WP:LEDE length. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it violates WP:LEDE length. The general rule is 4 paragraphs, and the lede is just 2 sentences longer than that. -Object404 (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)