Talk:2010 Philippine Bar exam bombing/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I am currently reading the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

Lead

• What theory? (second paragraph)
• A couple of the paragraphs (second and third especially) may need to be merged.

Incident and response

• "People in the area thought that the noise from the explosion was from fireworks that are a normal part of the post-bar celebrations. A commotion followed as people panicked and ran for safety." - Wouldn't they have to realize that it was a bomb first?
• Manila Doctors Hospital - does it not have an apostrophe? (i.e. not Manila Doctors' Hospital?)
• The third paragraph should probably be merged with the second, near the casualties figure.

Lazaga accused

Instead of writing (trans) after a translated quote, perhaps you should use {{cref}}, like used in Sitti Nurbaya so that the original can be read as well, but not intrude on the text.

Indictment

"... (for almost killing the two amputees) ..." implies that they were amputees prior to the blast. Rephrasing may be in order.

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

Perhaps Lazaga accused and Identification and surrender to Binay should be standardized, as having Lazaga's name in a header but not Nepomuceno's seems POV.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Looks fine. Spotchecks on a couple sources show no paraphrasing problems.

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

Looks fine.

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

(b) 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.

Fine, aside from the header issue above.

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

   Looks stable to me, most recent edits were for improvement and took place over a month ago.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

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

   I am worried about the FUR for both non-free images. They seem to indicate that the use is primarily for identification of the suspect, which is generally not considered a valid reason for fair use. The identification card, if produced by the government, may be Public Domain but I cannot guarantee it. The court image should probably be removed.

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

   Fine.

   Summary: On hold Please address text issues per G1 and image issues per G6a. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
   • No reply in 11 days. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)