Talk:Chocolate Hills/GA1

GA Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• There are two broken links.[1]

• I find the first paragraph of Issues difficult to follow:

Balancing their protection, resource utilization and tourism are the challenges faced by the Chocolate Hills. Before they were designated national geological monuments, some of the hills were classified as alienable and disposable or private lands such that they were titled to some locals. The declaration consequently caused some social unrest, resulting in almost simultaneous civil uprising, led by the long-established New People's Army (generally described as Maoist guerrillas) establishing a new "front", known as the Chocolate Hills Command. To some farmers, the proclamation is a government scheme which suppresses their right to own lands. As such, conflicts between the "command" and government military forces escalated, culminating in two major engagements.

• What does "alienable" mean? Does the second sentence simply mean that some of the land now designated a national monument was held in private hands? Were those landowners compensated? Why is "command" between quotation marks? Is it not the Chocolate Hill Command previously referred to? Is it not really a command? What does "front" mean in this context, and why is it between quotation marks?

• In both the Description and Tourism development sections text is squeezed between right- and left-aligned images.

• "Following his refusal to pay, Mayor Torrefranca of Sagbayan, Bohol has survived two assassination attempts since 1998, when the rebels firebombed his car." Not sure what this is trying to say, as it's ambiguous. Was his car firebombed in 1998, since when he has survived two further assassination attempts (i.e. three in total), or have there been two assassination attempts since 1998, in each of which his car was firebombed (i.e. two in total)?

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• • The congress site is accessible within the site, that is you must search the house bill using congress.gov.ph's search engine rather than google. NEDA link appears to be dead.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Move tourism image clutter to a gallery section.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • changed front and command to military link and to NPA group respectively as qouatations seems to be bad form.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • added wikt alienable, plus cites. NPA torch is cited with new source--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Ive never heard of this task force until now. Is this the GA version of "I'm gonna nominate your article for deletion if you don't clean this up"? If it is, I'm not happy with the harassment.---Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What harassment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you could explain how is this not harrasment (making people do double GA reviews when you could improve the article in less than an hour yourself) then this is not harrassment. By the way, are the improvements ok.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think assuming good faith is apt here. "Harassment" is such a strong word. --seav (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe I think I might be a little too near the civility edge here Seav but I'm really pissed off. I don't know why this editor prefer to create this "re-assessment" when the changes that I made simply took me less than an hour. Heck, I don't even have the slightest idea that the NPA has a base there on Bohol.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You're way over the civility edge. I spent considerable time yesterday in fixing up this article so that it would meet the GA criteria, which it did not. In fact I now have the second highest edit count on this article.[2] To add a charge of laziness to your earlier charge of harassment is really beyond the pale. I will look at this article again and make my decision as to its GA listing when I can do so with a little more equanimity than I am feeling right now. I think that it is particularly inappropriate when administrators such as yourself stoop to deliberately provocative and offensive language. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to ask that another GA reviewer takes over this review, or failing that take it to WP:GAR, as I do not want to be subjected to a further outburst from Lenticel if I have to delist this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Malleus asked for an opinion of another review, I am going to give this article a thorough reading tomorrow. However I already see a few problems: (a) The lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD, because it does summarize the article. For instance, there is nothing in the lead about origin and legends. (b) The third paragraph in Legend subsection and the second paragraph in Issues are unreferenced.

However I think that the article can be saved, and I hope that the authors of this article will assume good faith and start collaborating with reviewers. Periodic reviews of Good articles is a normal process, which is absolutely necessary for maintaining the GA standards. Ruslik (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Second Review

Well, I have read the article and I think that the quality of prose is insufficient. The article clearly fails criterion 1(a). The main problem is numerous repetitions in the text. For instance, in the "Tourism development" section paragraph three partially repeates the paragraphs two, and par 6 overlaps with par 5. The article can be shortened by as much as 20% without any detriment to the content.

The last section ("Protection") currently has two subsection, which in my opinion should be merged. The present "Issues" subsection contains almost no dates and it is unclear how events described in it relate to the legislation mentioned in previous subsection. The Issues subsection is also not clearly written, in my opinion. For example, does New People's Army is same organisation as communist guerrillas mentioed in the last paragraph? It also says that the mining permit continue to be granted, but this contradicts the previous subsection, which says that "the governor of Bohol, issued Administrative Order No. 3, series of 2006, which prohibits the issuance of quarry permits"?

The last serious problem is the "Origin" subsection. It containes some redundency and looks fragmentary. It is unclear how various hypothesis described in this subsection relate to each other, what hypothesis is now considered the most plausible? I think more reliable scientific sources should be used, for instance, papers in academic journals.

As I mentioned above the lead does not satisfies WP:LEAD and there are two unreferenced paragraphs. If all this issues can be fixed in several days the article will be kept in the GA list. Ruslik (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As nothing has been done, I will delist the article. Ruslik (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)