Talk:National symbols of the Philippines/GA1

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 10:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll take this review. Many thanks for your edits to this interesting article! I will review this article against the six good article criteria (WP:GA?). I'll take 2-3 days to familiarise myself with the article and update you on my assessment then. Something important for an article like this that I'll note at the outside is that a list of unofficial symbols is verifiable, with good reliable sources provided to support items that are listed. Speak to you in 2-3 days, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very well-written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Addressed
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None found - samples checked
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Checked
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	One exception - see below
	7. Overall assessment.

An engaging and well-written article. I can't see any major issues that would prevent this article from passing. I will check the sources and for copyright/plagiarism and let you know my findings. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Images

• Good and illustrative collection - the only question I have is whether this image really adds anything, as it is essentially an image of a commentator rather than a symbol ("According to Ambeth Ocampo, no historical Filipino personage has been declared officially as being a National Hero through law.")

Sources

These sections need citations:

• "The veto has left the waling-waling as an unofficial national symbol."
• "After the interpellation, it was moved by House of Representatives to refer the privilege speech of Vinzons-Chato to the Committee of Basic Education and Culture. "
• "Waling-waling as national flower; passed by Congress in 2013 but was vetoed by the President Benigno Aquino III."
• "The American eagle and lion rampant of Spain were deliberately deleted without public referendum, under section 14 of Administrative Code of 1987."

I am having trouble verifying these statements:

• "It lists 26 symbols including the previous ten official national symbols" - 26 not listed in source
• "A Philippine national symbol will be considered official once it is declared through a law or a proclamation. National symbols such as the cariñosa, carabao, bangus (milkfish), and anahaw (footstool palm) that are circulating through various sources have no official status and have not established by law" I see no relation to the source provided [1] and I can't access the second source
• Sampaguita - can't find reference to "1 February 1934" in the source, only 1934

I look forward to your replies, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tom (LT), thank you very much for your very nice review.

Here are my replies:

Images

• The image with the caption "According to Ambeth Ocampo, no historical Filipino personage..." was changed to an image of Jose Rizal, which relates more to the article.

Lacking sources

• "The veto has left the waling-waling as an unofficial national symbol."
  • I already provided a source [2] and the text was changed to "The veto did not grant the waling-waling as the second national flower due to the confusion that it would create."
• "After the interpellation, it was moved by House of Representatives to refer the privilege speech of Vinzons-Chato to the Committee of Basic Education and Culture."
  • I already provided a source. [3] For the reference of the said motion by the House of the Representatives, see page 9 of the source.
• "Waling-waling as national flower; passed by Congress in 2013 but was vetoed by the President Benigno Aquino III."
  • I already provided sources. [4][5]
• "The American eagle and lion rampant of Spain were deliberately deleted without public referendum, under section 14 of Administrative Code of 1987."
  • I already provided a source [6] and the text was changed to "The description of the Philippines' coat of arms can be found under section 14 of Executive Order No. 292 (Book I/Chapter 4), which is also known as the Administrative Code of 1987."

Unverified sources

• "It lists 26 symbols including the previous ten official national symbols" - 26 not listed in source
  • I added a source (House Bill 3926).[7] See Sec. 3 of House Bill 3926 and if you count the list of proposed national symbols, it's 26.
• "A Philippine national symbol will be considered official once it is declared through a law or a proclamation. National symbols such as the cariñosa, carabao, bangus (milkfish), and anahaw (footstool palm) that are circulating through various sources have no official status and have not established by law" I see no relation to the source provided [8] and I can't access the second source
  • The link of the first source is wrong. I already corrected it. [9] The second source cannot be accessed because of link rot but there is a web archive, which is already provided in the citation template. [10]
• Sampaguita - can't find reference to "1 February 1934" in the source, only 1934
  • I provided an additional source that states "1 February 1934." [11]

Additional content

• Take note that I added the following new content with appropriate sources:
  • "In 2013, Bayan Muna Congressmen Neri Colmenares and Carlos Isagani Zarate filed House Bill 3431 aiming to declare Andres Bonifacio as National Hero due to his actual participation in the Philippine Revolution against Spain."
  • "Due to laws declaring the heroism of Rizal and Bonifacio, their recognition as National Heroes is considered implied."

I hope the changes that I made addressed the issues. Please let me know if you have any other concerns or questions. Thanks. --Jojit (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jojit, it certainly does and I've marked the article as 'passed'. Thanks for your edits to this article :). If you want to take it to the next step, the appropriate venue would be featured lists. I wish you well on your wiki-voyages, --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply