Talk:Squatting in the Philippines/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Mujinga in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 14:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply


Hello! I will be reviewing this article. Should have it finished up by Sunday at the latest! --Cerebellum (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I dropped the ball on this! So sorry, I will finish it today. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

This was a fascinating article! I just have a few comments below, I'll place on hold for 7 days so you can address them. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Great thanks for the comments, I'll have time to answer them later this week. All the best, Mujinga (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Cerebellum those were really helpful comments, thanks again. I've replied on everything now, see what you think Mujinga (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Awesome, everything looks great now :) Happy to pass as GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Much obliged, nice working with you! Mujinga (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

edit
  • Prose - mostly! a few comments below.
  • Verifiable - mostly
  • Coverage - good!
  • NPOV - mostly
  • Stable - yes
  • Illustrated - good!

Comments

edit
  • Article structure - I reorganized the sections a bit, this is just a suggestion. Feel free to revert.
  • Do the sources say why the shanties were called barong-barong? Looks like barong means either a weapon or a type of clothing, I don't see the semantic connection.
  • After World War II, many people were left homeless in the Philippines and they built makeshift houses called "barong-barong" on abandoned private land. I could not find this information in the EB source, all I saw was, "the barong-barong, a makeshift shack built of salvaged materials".
  • ah yes so you've read the britannica entry hehe. good point on the first part of the sentence needing another citation, I'll look into that but have mislaid my charger cable so this might be my last edit for today Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Resistance to evictions fed into the opposition to the Marcos dictatorship and resulted in the 1986 People Power Revolution. Which page of the source is this on?
  • i am summarising page 79, especially this bit: "The urban poor were inevitably drawn into the multi-ideological alliances that were formed after 1983. They became a considerable constituency of such groups as Bayan, Bandila and the Lakas ng Sambayanan, which organized popular mobilizations during this period of intense political upheaval before the change of government in 1986." Mujinga (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Source 21 is a pretty biased editorial, is there a more neutral source?
  • Homelessness is a pressing issue for the Philippines - This is an expression of a POV, I would either remove that statement or attribute it.
  • Of the country's population of about 106 million, an estimated 4.5 million are homeless according to the Philippine Statistics Authority. Does the PSA provide figures for the precise category of squatters/informal dwellers? I'm not sure if there is a distinction between homeless people and squatters.
  • Causes of homelessness have been attributed - I would change to Causes of homelessness include.
  • indicating the need for government to cooperate with stakeholders to provide affordable housing to all. This sounds like POV press release speak to me, what do you think? Is there a neutral way to rephrase the idea?
  • Legal section: Do you think this should mention the 1975 Marcos decree as the first sentence? It would make the section more complete but I'm not sure since the decree is already mentioned in "history".
  • The Marcos decree criminalizing squatting was annulled by the Anti-Squatting Law Repeal Act of 1997 (RA 8368). This confuses me. If the Marcos decree was annulled, wouldn't that mean squatting was legal? Which would conflict with the 1992 law criminalizing it? --Cerebellum (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I've rejigged it a bit, and whilst I'm happy to be corrected by someone who knows more, after reading into it a bit I think that the 1992 law superseded the dictator's decree and worked in a different way to criminalize squatting, then the 1997 act was repealing the decree as part of constitutional cleanup. Squatting was never made legal since the 1992 law was in force whilst the decree was disregarded and then later annulled. Hope that makes sense! Mujinga (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply