Talk:Philippine Revolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:Php bill 5 back.jpg

The image Image:Php bill 5 back.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Ph pres aguinaldo.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Pagidlawin" vs. "Pagid Lawin"

I note some recent changes in this article "Pagidlawin" to "Pagid Lawin". My wife tells me that the two-word version of this means "Eagle's Nest". I can't find any references to the two-word version of this in the books I have on Philippine history. Does this usage have any historical validity, or is it a vanity-driven stylistic revision c. 2008? If the latter, it should be changed back.

Also—another topic, but related—it seems to me from what I've read that Wikipedia should have an article named Cry of Pagdilawin, and that Cry of Balintawak should redirect to that article. It surprises me that neither article exists, as both phrases are often seen in browsing material about the Philippine revolution. I could create such an article as a bare-bones stub containing the material I've recently added to the Cry of Pagdilawin section of this article, but others more knowledgeable than myself could probably make a better job of it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Cry of Pugadlawin

A very notable event, but I can't find it here. Any reaction?--JL 09^{Talk to me!} 22:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Before GA Review

I saw that this article is under the possibility of upgrading to GA status after a review. However, having reviewed articles before for GA, and not having the time (presently) to do a full GA review I would withdraw this article for now as much needs to be done.

• Whole Paragraphs are without an inline citation
• Multiple tags exist and should first be addressed before submitting for GA assessment
• Article should be checked against MOS
• Article needs to be checked against NPOV

One can wish to continue without doing these things first, however it is my humble opinion that without at least those things such an assessment would currently fail this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally I would suggest before going for GA nomination, have this article reviewed by WP:PRH; this will help in your edits to bring it up to standard before nomination to GA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

At present this article's review would be subject to a quickfail, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philippine Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 03:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Valid maintenance templates and citation needed tags:
  • Two CN tags
  • Top of article has a notice for rewrite and cleanup
  • Liberalism (1869-1871) cites no sources, and there is a template to remind
  • Rise of Filipino nationalism cites no sources, and has a template for that and factual accuracy
  • Criollo insurgencies is lacking in citations, as specified in the template
  • La Solidaridad, La Liga Filipina and the Propaganda Movement is lacking in citations, as specified in the template

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS| for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Quickfail under #3 of the QF criteria. Sorry, the article lacks citations completely in several sections, as well as partially in other sections. There are valid {{citation needed}} tags, as well as numerous ref, cleanup, and rewrite tags. The prose is problematic, with MOS and NPOV concerns, in addition to reading like a poor translation in need of a rewrite and copyedit by a native English speaker. I recommend addressing the citation issues, getting it copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors, and then renominating. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Cuba as belligerent

Why is Cuba listed as a belligerent under the Spain? Were there units individually designated as being under the Captaincy General of Cuba that was involved during the Philippine Revolution? I do not presently see any reliable source stating so. Therefore, for now I shall remove it from the infobox per WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philippine Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704025658/http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/coats/Coats_part_2.pdf to http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/coats/Coats_part_2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spanish/American victory

Technically wasn't it a Spanish victory as the Filipinos never won the war and much less the battles fought? Not to mention it was America that won manilla while Filipinos only acted as auxiliary troops for the Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:DF:8000:4786:0:2:95DF:1D37 (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)