Talk:1st Filipino Infantry Regiment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a good read through the article today.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK - first go through complete. There are some bits to fix, and an option on the copy-editing side - let me know how you'dl ike to play it! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The infobox contains information not in the article - I'd recommend you don't give infobox information (e.g. their commander's name) without adding it to the main article as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have integrated data that is located within the infobox into the article as suggested. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• There a number of other small copy-editing issues. Depending on what you prefer, I can either list them here, and you could make the changes, or I could change the article directly - I don't mind which way round we do it! 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Either way works. If one wish, for sake of cataloging changes related to the GAR, perhaps the requested changes can be listed. I also ran the article against Microsoft Word 2007; please let me know if there are any places that that program has missed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

General:

• The article suffers a little from overciting. Essentially, for a lot of your material here, which is in many cases uncontroversial in nature, you just need to give a single source for a statement. If you give too many citations, particularly if you're giving them each their own footnote, the sentences become quite hard to read, which is why its discouraged. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Citation overkill, which explores this issue a bit.

I have reduced the number of references listed below, and at most have kept two references max. Presently the article has two exceptions; they are the after the following sentence, or sentence fragments:

• "... in 1924 naturalization of Filipino Americans had been barred, as it was determined only aliens could be naturalized and Filipinos at the time were nationals."
• "After the war, the efforts of the 442nd continued to be lauded, ..."

Given that these maybe challenged in the future, having more than 2 references should help the stability of the statements. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• You don't need to have references in the lead, unless its a direct quote or similar: anything in the lead should be in the main body of the text and referenced there: but its not a requirement not to have them, if that makes sense.

To ensure stability, I do not see the harm of keeping references in the Intro Paragraph. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the choices for sources for particular references are a little odd - e.g. "Key Events in the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt" as a source for the date of the fall of Manila - and left me wondering why a standard history text book wouldn't have been a better choice on some occasions. On the other hand, the date is uncontroversial, and you may not have a text book to hand, so for GAR purposes, I'm content. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added an additional, possibly more standard source for the statement in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In detail:

• Footnotes 30, 31 and 32 are talking about a film; they aren't really sources in and of themselves (although the film itself could probably be used as a source). To be honest, though, you don't need them - the figure of 7,000 is uncontroversial, and footnote 33 gives you a citable source for it. I suspect that you could simply delete 30-32.

Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "While at Camp Beale, there was a mass naturalization ceremony of 1,200 soldiers of the regiment" - there are four citations then backing up this single statement. Do you really need all four?

Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "In November 1943, the Regiment paraded through Los Angeles, with Carlos Bulosan, the influential Filipino author of America Is in the Heart, there to witness it" is supported by an article from the Asian Journal. In order to be a good source, you'll probably need to know at least who authored the article, and add that into the citations.
• Author added. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Soldiers of the regiment faced discrimination in Marysville while off post from neighboring Camp Beale, as the businesses stated they did not serve Filipinos." - again, four citations feels excessive.
• Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• "One example was 2LT Rafael Ileto, who lead a team in the Alamo Scouts." Again, three references for a single short statement - you only need to choose one.

Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Finally in the Philippines, the regiment conducted "mopping up"[56] operations on the island,[57][58] Samar,[1][3][59] and other islands in the Visayan islands group" is supported by seven different references - could you achieve the same with just two or three?

Unfortunately, each reference pertains to a single island operation, therefore, the references are needed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "However, the activities of the Filipino Infantry Regiment and her sister units have gone largely unpublicized;[3] it was not until the documentaries Unsung Heroes and An UnTold Triumph that any significant visual media covered the history of the regiment.[69][70][71][72]" - again, five references supporting an average length sentence.

Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Infobox: you list the commander as Colonel Robert H. Offley, and give four different references for this. Again, unless it is controversial who the commander is, you don't need four citations - one high quality one will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Reduced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• I couldn't see any.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Deployment. This felt a little bit thin. Is this all that happened to them in Papua New Guinea and Leyte during the war? What else happened during the "mopping up" operations? You've told a good story about the unit, and I suppose I was keen to hear what happened when they finally got deployed. Could you give a "main article" wikilink to the campaigns, perhaps, or something like that? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is not significant data, or in depth data relating to their combat operations, thus the briefness of the section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• "One example was 2LT Rafael Ileto, who lead a team in the Alamo Scouts." - I wasn't sure why Ileto was singled out like that: if he was unusual in some way, it is worth saying why; if he was (and no disrespect to the units concerned) just another junior officer, it seems odd to mention him specifically. 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

2LT Ileto is singled out as he is a regiment member, but at the same time one of the few Regiment members who became independently notable on his own; he would later become the Vice Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Appears neutral.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• Images check out fine.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Images fine. The captions have unnecessary full-stops at the end, which runs against the MOS, but that isn't a formal requirement at GAR.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate. I was reading over WP:CAP, and am a little confused. Is WP:CAP#Drawing the reader into the article what is being referred to by the above statement? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)