Talk:Philippines/GA2

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments

edit

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)Reply

  • Etymology & History -
  • These two sections appear to be generally compliant.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Politics and government -
  • Generally OK. However:
– Updated reference. Lambanog (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

....Sorry for the delay; I will restart the review tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Overall summary

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


An apparently-comprehensive, well-illustrated, well-referenced, article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
    There is a bit too much WP:Overlinking. I've removed some of it during my review, but more could be taken out.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    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)Reply