Talk:Manila/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick skim-read through the article. The bulk of the text appears to be at or about GA-level but there are quite a few unreferenced paragraphs and some of the references appear to be books, but no page numbers are quoted. If the article is to make GA, these will need to be addressed.

I will now start the detailed review. At this stage I will be listing mostly the "problems". If they are corrected within a reasonable time, then the article could make GA-status this time round. I tend to leave the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• History-

• Ref 3 appears to be a book, the relevant page numbers or numbers should be given in the citation.

• So its a journal rather than a book, but it is still not properly cited (use {{cite Journal}} if you are unsure of the format). Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• The remainder of the first paragraph contains uncited claims.
• Ref 4 appears to be a Havard link, but there is nothing linked to it.
• Its not clear what ref 6 is, but it has the appearance of being an article in a journal, if so it should be properly cited (use {{cite journal}} if you don't know the correct format).
• Ref 7 appears to be a book, the relevant page numbers or numbers should be given in the citation.
• Ref 8 appears to be a Havard link, but there is nothing linked to it.
• The third paragraph is unreferenced.
• The second half of fourth paragraph is unreferenced. Pyrotec (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Most of the final paragraph, apart from two statements, is unreferenced.

• Geography -

• In the first paragraph, Ref 12 does not verify the claim (12a) that "The whole metropolitan area of Manila was elevated by 49 feet". Possibly there is a misunderstanding somewhere - what the citation states is "elevation 49 feet" which means 49 feet above sea level.
• In the second pargraph, Ref 2 only verifies that Manila is the most densily populated city; it does not verify the size (in square kilometers) of the city.
• This sentence is repeated in Demographics, Population density - why repeat it?

• Demographics -

• Ref 14 is a 128 page pdf file, the relevant page or page numbers should be provided.

• Economy -

• The first sentence states "The city earned a fine GDP of $13,731.", but that is unreferenced and there is no information on the year that this refers to.
• "Fine" appears to be a point of view WP:POV.
• The claim the Manila's growth rate will pass that of Singapoor by 2020 needs a reference.
• "Cheap buys or goods being sold at rock-bottom prices are available in the flea markets of Divisoria and Quiapo, where bargaining is a major shopping experience." appears to be a WP:POV.

• Culture and contemporary life -
  • Religion -

• There is an unaddressed {citation needed} flag.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Government -

• There is an unaddressed {citation needed} flag.

• Education -

• Ref 20 appears to be a broken web link.

• Infrastructure -
  • Transportation -

• The first three paragraphs are unreferenced.
• This claim: "Famous of all these forms of transportation is the public jeepney, which has been in use since the years immediately after World War II." certainly aught to be referenced.
• As should: "Manila Light Rail Transit System, a national priority project designed to address the overwhelming traffic that congests the national capital."

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• International relations -

• Ref 25 is a broken web link.

• WP:Lead -

This appears to be OK

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold for these points to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Any questions, just add them to this page. Pyrotec (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A wide ranging well illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Generally compliant, but could be improved.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Generally compliant, but could be improved.

   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:

   Very well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Very well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A wide ranging, very well-illustrated, article that is generally compliant with the requirements of WP:WIAGA, but would benefit from better referencing. Pyrotec (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)