Jump to content

Talk:Philippines: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Lambanog (talk | contribs)
3,762 edits
Ocenar (talk | contribs)
14 edits
No edit summary
Line 318: Line 318:


[[User:Lambanog|Lambanog]] ([[User talk:Lambanog|talk]]) 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Lambanog|Lambanog]] ([[User talk:Lambanog|talk]]) 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a question, how many poeple have died in the Philippines due to the H1N1 outbreak? [[User:Ocenar|Ocenar]] ([[User talk:Ocenar|talk]]) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:13, 8 November 2009

Template:VA

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
Former good article nomineePhilippines was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 2, 2008Peer reviewNot reviewed
August 18, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Philippines To Do

edit - history - watch - purge

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Wikipedia Meetups
   December 2024 +/-
Christchurch 34 December 1, 2024 (2024-12-01)
BLT Antenna New Orleans December 7, 2024 (2024-12-07)
Haitian Creole NYC December 8, 2024 (2024-12-08)
London 211 December 8, 2024 (2024-12-08)
Chicago December 2024 December 14, 2024 (2024-12-14)
Perth 85 December 15, 2024 (2024-12-15)
San Diego 117 December 16, 2024 (2024-12-16)
Seattle meetup December 17, 2024 (2024-12-17)
   January 2025 +/-
Wikipedia Day Seattle January 11, 2025 (2025-01-11)
London 212 January 12, 2025 (2025-01-12)
Wikipedia Day Minnesota January 15, 2025 (2025-01-15)
Exeter 2 January 18, 2025 (2025-01-18)
Wikipedia Day Toronto January 19, 2025 (2025-01-19)
Edinburgh 19 January 25, 2025 (2025-01-25)
Wikipedia Day NYC January 25, 2025 (2025-01-25)
Brixton 6 January 27, 2025 (2025-01-27)
Full Meetup Calendar • Events calendar on Meta
For meetups in other languages, see the list on Meta

Meetups have so far been held in fifteen areas in the Philippines:

Interactive events

See also

Template for other languages

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE HISTORY SECTION

I am currently reviewing the history section because there are attempts to reassess this article for a higher status while some matters are still in need of some serious attention.

1. Philippine Independence: The History section mentions and I quote, "the United States granted the Philippines its independence from colonial rule due to international pressure". Whoever placed that statement here used the CIA factbook as basis. I perused the cited source and NOWHERE does it mention that international pressure was one of the immediate and direct causes for the granting of independence. Indeed, this statement is dubious if not a clear case of misinformation. The granting of Philippine independence in 1946 was already set in motion 12 years prior by the passage of the Tydings-McDuffie Act which provided for self-government and eventual independence after a period of 10 years. Please see books by Zaide and other authorities, as well as the text of the Act here: Tydings-McDuffie Act.

Domestic conservative interests, or even partisan and self-interest by politicians during Quezon's time may also have been factors in the quest for independence, but then again any statement to that effect must be based upon a credible and well-recognized source or authority.

2.Colonization by Quezon of Mindanao: The same section states and I quote, "Manuel L. Quezon was elected as president in 1935, with the task of preparing the country for sovereignty. During his term numerous tasks regarding agrarian reform were initiated, including the colonization of Mindanao, an area considered as part of the hinterlands at the time." While Mindanao may have well been considered as part of the hinterlands during Quezon's time, the use of the word colonization is such a serious term considering that the issue is still a continuing and hotly debated topic (and is even the subject of a current armed conflict) and to use it, and make it appear like fact in an encyclopedia such as this, without citing a credible source, is not at all proper.

3. Coup attempts: on coup attempts the section states, "Terrorism in the south began to fester and move up north while an unruly military began plotting coup attempts in the capital, Manila". I'm not really sure if the use of the word unruly is in line with this encyclopedia's neutrality (NPOV) policy. Perhaps the proper wording should be: "Terrorism in the south began to fester and move up north while certain factions of the military began plotting coup attempts". The latter wording, to my mind is more in line with NPOV than the previous one. Thinkinggecko (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem capable and should probably consider making the edits yourself. I've been here a short time only but from what I can tell many who are capable and circumspect leave the actual edits to others who while bold may not appreciate the nuance as well as those who made the initial observations. Lambanog (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly be glad to make the necessary edits once an administrator unlocks this article for editing. Right now, access has been limited to the talk page. I understand some editors would like this article to be reassessed for the GA and FA status, I certainly would want to see a more thorough discussion on this talkpage to arrive at a consensus and avoid this article from being hijacked before any action is to be taken in granting any GA or FA status. I am (and I'm sure others are also) of the position that articles in an encyclopedia should be accurate, neutral, brief and concise without being incomplete nor overly-loaded, and well documented or referenced. Thinkinggecko (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PHILIPPINES-LATIN

Philippines is not an asian country. Firstly we are of spanish decent but we are located in south asia just like how mexico is located somewhere in south america! we are a diverse country but we are orginally from spain or of any latin family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneyeforyou (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{untrue}} --Bluemask (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? According to Stanford, check Ethnic groups in the Philippines, a small percentage of the population have varying degrees of European ancestry. So most Filipinos are not of Spanish ancestry. The Philippines isn't located in South Asia by the way, it's located in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, Mexico is not in South America, it's in Latin America or North America. And how is the Philippines not an Asian country? Elockid (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines are a country filled with people of both Spanish and Asian decent. The official call should be that Filipinos are Pacific Islanders not Asian. It is in the same boat as Samoa, Guam, and Tonga! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Offtrail19 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive commas

I'm not allowed to edit this article or I'd fix it myself, but I've noticed that there are a lot of instances of a comma incorrectly being used before the "and" when only two nouns are being connected.

For example:

Multiple ethnicities, and cultures are found throughout the islands.

should be:

Multiple ethnicities and cultures are found throughout the islands.

If someone decides to fix this, all I ask is that you don't remove commas in cases where there are three or more nouns, since those commas are in fact correct, and greatly help readability. ^_^ KenobiwanX (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philippines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The manual of style appears to be followed for the most part, but the article could use a good, thorough copyedit by someone familiar with English grammar. I've been fixing a few of the more obvious things, but it would help if additional people could provide more eyes on it. The lead section is also a bit short, and should be expanded. Please see WP:LEAD for advice here. One other issue: "This would inspire a Propaganda Movement in Spain, organized by expatriate patriots" -- what exactly is an "expatriate patriot"?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    See 'citation needed' tags in article. Also, it would help if full citation information was added to references -- author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL retrieved -- even for sources that are websites. Include as much information as you can, so that if the link disappears, the information can still be attributed to the source and can be verified through offline means if necessary.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Most of the major topics are covered, but there are a couple of areas that need additional work -- see the 'dubious' tags in the article, and the notes attached to them. I would recommend moving the 'education' subsection out of 'demographics' and into its own main section, as it doesn't really fit with demographics too much. I would also recommend adding more about higher education institutions. This statement, "The general pattern of formal education follows six stages" seems to be a generalization, and not cited. One issue here is that grad education and adult education are not part of formal education and, in fact, optional.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The 'international relations' section seems to be a bit "overly optimistic", covering mostly positive relations with other nations. For example, it cites "optimistic" relations with middle eastern countries, but doesn't go into details on any issues that might be there. I think this could be expanded.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Recent edit warring resulting in page protection by Yellowmonkey on July 7, 2009. I would like to see this article's page protection removed to see if the edit warring truly subsides, because there still appears to be some recent comments on the talk page that could result in more issues.
  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):
    There appear to be copyright issues looking at the file description for the El nido.jpg image. There is no copyright tag on Jeepney Benz.jpg. There is a personality rights warning tag on the image Sepak takraw.jpg.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    As an additional comment, and I wouldn't hold this up at GAN, but I find it curious that the infobox has an entry for which side of the road citizens drive on. This seems rather minimally notable, if at all,... Really strange? But, I guess editors are just going with the infobox, so there,... ;-)

Overall, I think the main sections contained in the article are good, and there's a very good framework. Editors are doing a good job in sticking with the manual of style. However, due to the rather poor quality of prose and intense copy editing needed, as well as the page protection currently in place, and the numerous image issues, I don't think the article meets the Good Article criteria and cannot be listed at this time. I'd like to see page protection removed for at least a month or two before reconsideration for GA, to make sure that the article doesn't degrade into a serious edit war. In the meantime, I would recommend focusing on the copy editing and citation issues.

As an additional note, I likely would have put this on hold instead if it wasn't for the page protection currently in place. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with removing the page protection is that the article is vandalized often. Last recent unprotection history
Also based on the number of protection logs for the article, unprotecting it does not some like a good idea. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Then why not just revert the edits when you suspect vandalism? Is it because the users are so self conscious of their online image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.179.231 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted a possible vandalism

I reverted an edit by User:Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw because the user has not provided a proper research study or any academic studies based on the history of the Philippines. Please use common-sense and see the History of the Philippines. The early history of the Philippines was both indigenous and islamic, since the indigenous villages at that period especially in the central and southern regions of the Philippines was ruled by the datus, rajahs and sultans. The Negritos and other northern tribal groups, however, was never influence by islam, instead they were animist tribal groups. Boxedor (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the new titles for the history section. They are general yet descriptive at the same time. ;)--23prootie (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

The article has been protected again due to edit warring. Protecting admin recommended to fix some dispute on this article, it may be the reason why there is an edit war. We wish that an admin will help fix these.--JL 09 q?c 23:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philippines/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

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

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]

I AM APPEALING TO EVERYONE WHO HAS GREATER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE WORKAROUNDS IN THIS WEBSITE. WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME TOO COMPLICATED FOR ME TO ADD(OR REMOVE) INFOS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACCESS TO EDITING THE PAGE ABOUT THE PHILIPPINES TO REMOVE THE MENTIONING OF "CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN" AMONG THOSE RESTAURANTS MENTIONED ALONG WITH MCDONALDS AND KFC,THAT APPARENTLY HAVE THEIR OUTLETS HERE. ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT CALIFORNIA PIZZA HAS A BRANCH HERE, I THINK THERE IS ONLY 1 BRANCH IN THE WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO, AND NOT THAT POPULAR AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER AFOREMENTIONED RESTAURANTS TO BE MENTIONED. I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS ADDED ON THE LIST AS A PROMOTIONAL GIMMICK AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS WEBSITE SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR SUCH PURPOSES. IF CALIFORNIA PIZZA LIKES TO BE KNOWN IN THE PHILIPPINES THEN THEY SHOULD MAKE AN ADVERTISEMENT(ASTOUNDINGLY, I HAVENT SEEN ANY OF THEIR ADS) AND LEAVE WIKIPEDIA ALONE. I HAVE ALREADY DELETED THAT RESTAURANT BEFORE AND SURPRISINGLY SOMEONE POSTED IT AGAIN AND EVEN PLACING IT FIRST BEFORE MCDONALDS. I WILL BET MY LAST CENTAVO THAT SHOULD YOU COME TO THE PHILIPPINES, ASK ANYONE HERE IF THEY KNOW SUCH RESTAURANT AND OUT OF 100 RESPONDENTS ALL OVER MANILA, ONLY 4 WOULD PERHAPS KNOW IT, WHEREAS IF YOU ASK THEM IF THEY KNOW SHAKEYS, PERHAPS 80 WOULD AFFIRM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjmedina (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

Isn't taglog not really a Filipino language? I thought it just was a general term to sum up all of the different Filipino languages.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeaga (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are more cebuano speeking people than tagalog. please do more research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.132.190 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asian City of the future

I think you should include in the economy section or whatever section you like about Davao city, Cebu city and Quezon City listed as top Ten Asian City of the future by fdi magazine where Davao is listed at no 10, Cebu at no. 8 and Quezon City at no. 7. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.151.184 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Relationships

Philippines has good foreign relationships.The following countries are its major import partners.

1.U.S.A

2.Japan

3.South Korea

4.Taiwan

5.China

6.Vietnam

7.Palau

8.Netherlands

9.United Kingdom

10.Canada

The following countries are its major export partners.

1.U.S.A

2.China

3.United Kingdom

4.Netherlands

5.Palau

Lambanog' edits

Excised the following paragraph from the cuisine section and am storing it here in case someone objects:

Today, Philippine cuisine continues to evolve in techniques and styles of cooking dishes, in both traditional Filipino and modern cuisines. Fast food is also popular. American chef and television personality Anthony Bourdain has hailed Filipino pork cuisine and named the country at the top of his "Hierarchy of Pork".[2]

Comments: Not cohesive. Not focused. Bourdain's endorsement in the article could be stronger. Lambanog (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The previous "factual overview" I replaced:

The Philippines (Template:Lang-fil [pɪlɪˈpinɐs]) officially known as the Republic of the Philippines, is a country in Southeast Asia in the western Pacific Ocean. To its north across the Luzon Strait lies Taiwan. To its west across the South China Sea is Vietnam. The Sulu Sea to the southwest separates it from the island of Borneo and to the south the Celebes Sea from other islands of Indonesia. It is bounded on the east by the Philippine Sea. An archipelago comprising 7,107 islands, the Philippines has the 5th longest coastline in the world.[3][4] The islands are broadly categorized into three main geographical divisions: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.[5] The capital city is Manila.

The Philippines is the world's 12th most populous country, with an estimated population of about 92 million people.[6][7] It is estimated that there are about 11 million overseas Filipinos worldwide, equivalent to about 11% of the total population of the Philippines.[8] Multiple ethnicities and cultures are found throughout the islands. In terms of religious affiliation a 2000 census shows Filipinos identifying themselves as follows: Roman Catholic 80.9%, Muslim 5%, Evangelical 2.8%, Iglesia ni Kristo 2.3%, Aglipayan 2%, other Christian 4.5%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.6%, none 0.1%.[5][9]

Its national economy is the 47th largest in the world, with an estimated 2008 gross domestic product (GDP nominal) of over US$ 168.6 billion (nominal).[10] Primary exports include semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, copper products, petroleum products, coconut oil, and fruits.[5] Major trading partners include China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia.[5] Its unit of currency is the Philippine peso (PHP).

A former colony of Spain and the United States, the customs, methods, and ideas of both have influenced Filipino culture as have the practices of neighboring Asian countries. Ecologically, the Philippines is one of the most diverse countries in the world.[11] Balancing the often conflicting demands of a burgeoning population in the light of poverty on the one hand and the sensible custodianship of natural resources and conservation of the environment on the other is one of the main challenges facing the nation.

Replaced with this more "expository overview":

The Philippines (Template:Lang-fil [pɪlɪˈpinɐs]) officially known as the Republic of the Philippines, is a country in Southeast Asia in the western Pacific Ocean. To its north across the Luzon Strait lies Taiwan. To its west across the South China Sea is Vietnam. The Sulu Sea to the southwest separates it from the island of Borneo and to the south the Celebes Sea from other islands of Indonesia. It is bounded on the east by the Philippine Sea. An archipelago comprising 7,107 islands, the Philippines has the 5th longest coastline in the world.[3][12] The islands are broadly categorized into three main geographical divisions: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.[5] The capital city is Manila.

With an estimated population of about 92 million people, the Philippines is the world's 12th most populous country.[6][7] It is estimated that there are about 11 million overseas Filipinos worldwide, equivalent to about 11% of the total population of the Philippines.[8] Multiple ethnicities and cultures are found throughout the islands. Ecologically, the Philippines is one of the most diverse countries in the world.[11]

Its national economy is the 47th largest in the world, with an estimated 2008 gross domestic product (GDP nominal) of over US$ 168.6 billion (nominal).[13] Primary exports include semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, copper products, petroleum products, coconut oil, and fruits.[5] Major trading partners include China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia.[5] Its unit of currency is the Philippine peso (PHP).

In ancient times the archipelago was populated by successive waves of Austronesian peoples who brought with them influences from Malay, Hindu, and Islamic cultures. Trade would also introduce some Chinese cultural influences. The arrival of Ferdinand Magellan would mark the beginning of an era of Spanish dominance. Christianity would become widespread and the Philippines would serve as the Asian hub of the Manila-Acapulco galleon fleet. After the short-lived Philippine revolution and Philippine-American War at the start of the 20th century, the United States replaced Spain as the dominant power which it remained, aside from a period of Japanese occupation, until the end of World War II when the Philippines gained independence. The United States bequeathed to the Philippines the English language and its democratic presidential system of government. Since independence the Philippines has had an often tumultuous experience with democracy, with popular "People Power" movements overthrowing a dictatorship in one instance but also underlining the institutional weaknesses of its constitutional republic in others.

Comments: Seems to be more in line with other country article overviews and I get the feeling fact listings are probably better placed in the relevant sections. Feel free to discuss.


Removed the following statements from the Economy section:

The economy was largely anchored on the Manila-Acapulco galleon during the Spanish period and bilateral trade with the United States during the American period. Pro-Filipino economic policies were first implemented during the tenure of Carlos P. Garcia with the "Filipino First" policy.
Today, there is a mixed economy.[14]
In a bid to further strengthen the economy, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo pledged to turn the country into a developed country by 2020. As part of this goal, she instituted five economic "super regions" to concentrate on the economic strengths of various regions, as well as the implementation of tax reforms, continued privatization of state assets and the building-up of infrastructure in various areas of the nation.
The government aims to accelerate economy, and GDP growth by 2009.

Comments: Galleon trade should be in the history section. "Filipino First" policy's impact on economy is not made clear. Saying there is a mixed economy is saying the obvious. Virtually all modern economies can be described as mixed. The rest reads like something out of a press release and are actions largely expected of all governments. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "and have lead a Philippine-based company known as "Level Up! Games" to emerge in the Philippine industry" from the Media section.

Comments: Although I am personally aware of the existence of said company, notability has not been established especially in regards to relevance for this article. Citations for the sentence did not mention it. It comes off as promotional and has therefore been removed. Lambanog (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement

For those who want to improve the article further it might help to look at other articles about other countries that have already attained featured article status. I see that Indonesia, India, Japan, Australia, Canada, Germany, Peru, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Israel, Turkey, Cameroon, Chad, and maybe some others I missed share that distinction.

A quick perusal of a couple of them and some effort put into editing this article leads me to believe that the history section might be too long. The Demographic and Culture sections also appear somewhat bloated and the subject matter a bit forced to me. Strange as it seems I think there might also be too much content requiring citations. Citations make the editing process harder by including extra items that break the flow of reading while editing. My suggestion is to simplify the content trying to retain only the most essential and salient points and to try expressing them with maximum efficiency and cogency. Lambanog (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking over some of the references and noticed the formatting was inconsistent. One of the problems was that some citations used the {{citation}} template while others used the {{citepaper}} template. The former creates citations separated by commas, the latter separated by periods. I think the {{citepaper}} template gives cleaner citations. {{citepaper}} should replace all instances of {{citation}}. Lambanog (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addicted04 has changed the image map from "Location Philippines ASEAN.svg" to "Philippines (orthographic projection).svg". Not sure it is appropriate for the Philippines but will leave it alone for now and just place the file names here for quick reference in case changing it back is desired. Lambanog (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be reassessed for "Feature Status"

Finally, after 3 years all the inadequacies to this article has been addressed since the original assessment. New sections have been added and info has been expanded and all the paragraphs needing citations have been referenced. Subsections which were originally lacking were added into and the structure has been condensed. I think the administrators should reassess our article fro Feature status. And hopefully they'll approve it. We deserve it, the Filipino people deserves it. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some glaring discrepancies, although with a few more edits maybe a review will get it up to good article status. Some things to note:
  • "1st millenium C.E." confused me. I thought it was referring to the year 0 C.E. before thinking over your comment jolted me into realizing you were talking about the year 1000 C.E. There is a gap from 1000 B.C.E. to 1000 C.E. so I misinterpreted. [Read it again, somehow skipped over the last paragraph of Early history referring to 300-700 C.E. In light of this my complaint is unreasonable. Prefer the wording "dawn of" the 1st millennium.]
  • Early history refers to "3 distinct kinds of peoples" yet going by the italics I see 4 namely Tribal Groups, Warrior-Societies, Petty Plutocracy and the Harbor Principalities of the Estuarine Civilizations. I think it should be rewritten and italics removed so it doesn't have the appearance of jargon.
  • Filipinos in italics in the Colonial period section I think may be warranted but still open to possible disagreement from someone else. Biak-na-Bato as a place name and proper noun I don't think should be italicized.
I haven't read some of the later sections but a very quick skim makes me think there may be other problems or ways to improve content and structure. Some of the phrases used are very banal and general. It's the difference between limp writing and engaging writing and those sections probably need more work if the parts I've been involved in rewriting are an accurate indication. Lambanog (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article speaks of "300-700 C.E. then, in a following section, speaks of "the early years of the 1st Millennium C.E." I infer that the later period referred to is the years following 1000 C.E. WP:MILLENNIUM says, "the second millennium was 1001–2000". It seems to me that the mention here should say "2nd", not "1st". (I've just edited that WP:MILLENNIUM section, but my edits there had to do with BCE dates). Perhaps it would be better to say "In the years following 1000 C.E., ..." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, your suggestions have been listened to, and the problems has been addressed I have rewrote sentence concerning the 1st millennium, I changed the number of societies from 3 to 4 the paragraph and removed the Italics in "Biak-na-bato" but I didn't removed the italics in Filipino because its peers were also in Italics. Please give more suggestions guys. So that we can better improve the article in-order to gain the featured status. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC) iohjuio0h9ph8itrf7ygioy985t97gt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.83.196 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, I don't think it is in the best interests of the article to put up too much information regarding Erap and Gloria aside from the bare minimum, if even that. They are too contentious and draw too much edit warring. For an overview about the country, mentioning them is optional. Best to keep them at arms length and just link if necessary. Two other points:
  • The royal lineage of the Macapagals will probably require a citation and that piece of information probably doesn't belong in this article and is more appropriate for a more specific article.
  • Your phrasing suggests the plunder trial caused the 2001 EDSA Revolution and led to Estrada's downfall. That is inaccurate or at least confusing. The plunder trial came afterward and is different from the aborted impeachment trial. Someone unfamiliar with the events might not understand the difference.
As I have indicated before I think we've reached the point where less is more in some cases. The history section is large in comparison to other country articles and the other sections in my view are weak and could use some work. I think attention needs to be focused on them if this article is to be promoted. I need citations for the cuisine section for example, the Bayanihan dance troupe should be brought up in the culture section, and the economy section is uncritical among other things. To read the economy "improved" then later it "improved" again yet the country went from being one of the wealthiest in Asia to one that is now trying to catch up is risible. Something went wrong and it should be identified. From my point of view not enough Filipinos understand the concept of compounding growth and that's why they do not take a pathetic 3% growth rate year in and year out that barely registers above the population growth rate for the disaster that it is. If there is one educational tidbit of value that a Filipino reading this article should take away I would say that should be it. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried but failed to identify the following reference which is currently "20. ^ Page 52, Societies in Prehispanic Philippines" and have tagged it as vague. Please provide further information details or it will be removed.
I have also noticed the inclusion of the following reference: ^ "Prehispanic Source Materials: for the study of Philippine History" (Published by New Day Publishers, Copyright 1984) Written by William Henry Scott, Page 67, Paragraph 3. Note that it doesn't follow common citation format. Please use the {{citepaper}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, or {{cite news}} templates as appropriate in the future to facilitate editing and improvement of the article. One of the major reasons the review process has highlighted as holding the article back from promotion is the inadequate reference section. Lambanog (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, your dedication to giving more details is commendable but I fear it is not going to necessarily result in a better article. Please seriously consider condensing your contributions to the essentials and refrain from adding more. Please refer to WP:SS and feature article criterion 4. Your contributions look more appropriate in subarticles. I'm concerned a future edit might require large cuts in the history section if this article is to see improvement. It would be a shame to see your work and effort go to waste. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Criteria

For easy reference here is the featured article criteria that should serve as a guide for every edit aimed at improving this article:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is—
    • (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
    • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    • (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
    • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    • (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    • (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
    • (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
  3. Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Lambanog (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, how many poeple have died in the Philippines due to the H1N1 outbreak? Ocenar (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ My mom is a somewhat famous Filipino (look up Mabel Orogo)
  2. ^ Anthony Bourdain (2009-02-16). "Hierarchy of Pork". Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations. Travel Channel. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
  3. ^ a b Philippines : General Information, Government of the Philippines
  4. ^ CIA World Factbook: Coastline
  5. ^ a b c d e f g Cite error: The named reference CIAfactbook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b 2000 Census-based Population Projection, National Statistics Office, Republic of the Philippines, 2006, retrieved 2008-04-17
  7. ^ a b "Philippines". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
  8. ^ a b Yvette Collymore (2003). "Rapid Population Growth, Crowded Cities Present Challenges in the Philippines". Population Reference Bureau. An estimated 10 percent of the country's population, or nearly 8 million people, are overseas Filipino workers distributed in 182 countries, according to POPCOM. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. ^ "2000 Census: ADDITIONAL THREE PERSONS PER MINUTE". National Statistics Office. Archived from the original on 2007-04-09. Retrieved 2008-01-09.
  10. ^ The IMF estimate of the total GDP (nominal) of the Philippines
  11. ^ a b Biodiversity Theme Report
  12. ^ CIA World Factbook: Coastline
  13. ^ The IMF estimate of the total GDP (nominal) of the Philippines
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference lastlaugh was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines&oldid=324691955"