Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imelda Marcos/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2016 [1].

Imelda Marcos edit

Nominator(s): Imeldific (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Imelda Marcos, the former First Lady of the Philippines and current congresswoman. She is famous for her shoe collection and her marriage to former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. During her time as First Lady, she traveled the world met with world leaders and buy artwork. She still serves the Philippines through her work in Congress. Imeldific (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Should use scaling rather than fixed image sizes, per MOS:IMGSIZE
  • Can you explain how the flags in Legacy meet MOS:FLAGICON?
  • File:Imelda-alone.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Marcos_Clark_Air_Base_cropped.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Imeldific (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto edit

N.B. I commented on the previous nomination of this article, and have made some comments on the recent RFC on the talkpage.

Firstly, I am pleased to see that many of the problems I had with the article in its previous candidacy (and one that I didn't raise, but noticed) have been fixed. I haven't yet gone through the article properly, but a few comments:

  • The images don't appear to have any alt text, which is important for accessibility. Fixed
  • The gBooks link to Pedrosa (2016) is broken for me. It returns "Your search - isbn:6214100834 - did not match any book results." (I haven't systematically checked the links, others may also be broken). Fixed (though NB there may still be broken links).
  • There are various references to books without specifying page number/chapter/anything which would help a reader find the claim which is being cited. Currently to (in order of appearance) Garcia (1969), Garcia (2016), Pedrosa (2013), Sagmayoa (1986), Kumar (2004), Pedrosa (2016). Could the pages referred to be cited?
  • The citation format for the bibliography is inconsistent. Location, publisher, ISBN, and OCLC number all appear for some but not all of the items. Also, the "Lastname, firstname" order is not always respected (e.g. in Aquino et al.).
Done, except for the oclc part. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Serin et al., the date is given as "179". Is this meant to be "1979" or something else? Fixed

There are also prose issues:

  • In the lead: "Imelda Marcos was born in Manila but later moved to Tacloban prior to World War II after the death of her mother during her childhood."
  • Also in the lead "The Marcos family were forced into exile, and Aquino's widow Corazon was installed as president. After her husband's death, she returned to the Philippines": make it "after her husband's death, Marcos returned", otherwise it appears that the article is referring to Corazon Aquino.
Hi, Caeciliusinhorto. I believe I addressed this confusion while I was passing through. Go have a look-see. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Power struggle": "The location where her shoes and jewelry were destroyed and the contents stolen."

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, some more comments (for clarity, made after Checkingfax's endorsements of my comments).

  • I'd like to see more detail, especially about Marcos' role as first lady. The article says that she was Minister for Human Settlements, but only gives very brief details about what she did in that role. The comments on her role as ambassador basically just say that she made lots of powerful friends, which I'm sure is true, but she must have done other things with greater historical significance than go out to dinner with the Nixons! Her involvement in the Libyan peace treaty, for instance, must have more to say about it than simply that it happened.
  • The description of the Green revolution given in the article ("intended to address hunger by encouraging the people to plant produce in household gardens") is entirely different from the article linked. I'm not sure whether this is because the article is referring to something else also called the Green revolution, or whether the article is misunderstanding what the Green revolution was; in the first case it needs unlinking, in the second, fixing.
  • How did Imelda and Ferdinand meet?
  • Why is her religion in the section on early life?

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And some more from me:

About sourcing
  • Books published by Lulu.com are generally considered to be self-published sources, which are generally not considered reliable. Why should we consider The Great Gold Swindle reliable?
  • Similarly, CreateSpace, iUniverse, and AuthorHouse are all listed as self-publishing companies. Why should we consider the books cited as published by these companies reliable?
  • eBookIt.com isn't listed in that list, but appears from its website to be a self-publishing company. Again, the same question.
About content
  • The section on Legacy appears to be just a list of trivia in prose form. Has there been any discussion of her legacy in reliable sources?
  • What is her legacy outside of music? Did any of her actions as first lady have lasting effects on Filipino politics, for instance?
  • Why are foreign honours she was awarded as first lady in the section on her legacy?

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax edit

  • Hi, Imeldific. I made several deep polishing passes starting here. I agree with everything Caeciliusinhorto said. Ping me back when the FA review process has moved further along and I will be happy to comment or !vote. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest adding 2 more varied images. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi edit

  • Go down into the Bibliography, find the two Pedrosa sources, and click their links. Go ahead. I dare you.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we having arguments between nominator and other significant editors? If so, please spare everyone the headache and withdraw nomination now – resolve your probs before coming here. Thanks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by imeldific edit

@Caeciliusinhorto, Lingzhi & Checkingfax, Need help on Imelda Marcos article. Imeldific (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Checkingfax. Imeldific (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Imeldific. You are welcome. Now, take each line item from Caeciliusinhorto, fix it, and mark it as Fixed. as you move down their laundry list. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ Checkingfax, Pincrete just undid your edits so this is still not fixed. Imeldific (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete actually fixed Checkinfax's edit before you left this message. Pincrete could see that this edit was constructive unlike the many that preceded it which were in direct contravention of talk discussion.Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pincrete (with cc to Imeldific). Thank you for putting one of my two fixes back. That leaves one more to put back. Why are y'all having parallel discussions on the talk page? You need to unify. Bring your constructive comments and constructive criticism over here. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Checkingfax, I don't believe I removed the other one, if I did I will restore and apologise. I'm sorry, as far as I know the place for article discussion is the talk page, where ongoing participation of all involved editors, ongoing RfC's etc is possible. I have no objection to your specific points, however FaC is being used by Imeldific to 'sneak edit' in order to bypass the talk processes on certain key issues. Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry book error was my fault, fixed.Pincrete (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Need feedback from Caeciliusinhorto and Lingzhi. Imeldific (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite happy for feedback from either, however proper place for discussion of content is article talk page, not by Imeldific using FaC to go against views of other article editors. Pincrete (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is now in the talk page. Imeldific (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm going to archive this nom and recommend that all interested parties work on improvements outside the FAC process and try for another peer review before considering a re-nomination. A few pieces of advice in passing, based on a quick scan:

  • Procedural: There's no need to transclude the FAC to the article talk page, there's already a link at the top of the talk page (leave comments).
  • Quotes such as "the other half of the conjugal dictatorship" should be attributed inline, as in according to so-and-so, she became "the other half of the conjugal dictatorship".
  • "she forced a plane to do a U-turn mid-air just because she forgot to buy cheese in Rome" -- the "just" is unnecessary.
  • "Her claimed fortune came from Yamashita's gold" -- perhaps you mean "it is claimed that her fortune came from Yamashita's gold", but it's hard to tell the way it's expressed.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D (edit conflict during FAC closing) edit

Strong oppose This article fails FA criterion 1b as it is much too short to provide adequate coverage of Marcos' life and 1d as it's non-neutral. It also fails 1c as many of the works in the biography are self-published, and no serious attempt appears to have been made to consult good quality works on Filipino history of the Marcos era. Marcos has been an internationally-known and highly controversial figure for decades, yet the article has only 30 kb of prose text, and quickly passes over major details. For instance:

  • "Her role in the presidency was controversial partly because she was involved in altercations with celebrities" - not really. She's controversial for being half of a dictatorial couple and allegedly being involved in very large scale corruption
  • " She purchased property in Manhattan in the 1980s, including the US$51 million Crown Building,[51][52] the Woolworth Building in 40 Wall Street, and the US$60 million Herald Centre.[53] She declined to buy the Empire State Building because she felt it was "too ostentatious." - where did the money for this come from?
  • "While her husband began to suffer from lupus erythematosus, she effectively ruled in his place" - from what dates, and what did she do as the (effectively) acting president?
  • "With accusations against her beginning to rise" - what accusations?
  • "Ferdinand created the Agrava Commission, a fact-finding committee, to investigate her, ultimately finding her not guilty." - did this commission have any legitimacy?
  • "The exact number of her shoes varies with estimates of up to 7,500 pairs. However, Time reported that the final tally was only 1,060" - why is the 1986 Time story being privileged over the 2006 CNN story which provides a higher figure?
  • "Her claimed fortune came from Yamashita's gold, a semi-mythical treasure trove that is widely believed in the Philippines to be part of the Japanese loot in World War II" - what total and utter rubbish. The money is believed to have come from corruption with many reliable sources being available to attest to this (eg, [2], [3], [4], [5]) yet this is barely mentioned.
  • Why is her 1993 conviction for corruption [6] not mentioned?
  • It's dubious to present Marcos' various legal victories without context - even a quick review of the literature indicates many were dubious at best. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Imelda_Marcos/archive3&oldid=726092649"