GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Nominator: FloridaMan21 (talk · contribs) 14:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Will be reviewing this, I hope to not mess up unlike my first-fourth reviews, Thanks. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but the article has various problems, especially for grammar, I may have to put this on hold.


1. Well-written - There are a lot of small grammar problems, the prose is clear and concise, and understandable. The article also passes the guideline for lead sections (although there needs to be citations to the places where there aren't). Passes the layout guideline, and the words to watch guideline.

"established the first modern labor union in the country, considered the first labor union in the country"

organized from members of the KAP[2] and KPMP,[13] (move, Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP, Communist Party of the Philippines))"

"Filemon Lagman, (a or the) secretary"  Done


2. Verifiable with no original research - The article complies with the manual of style for References.
2b. Source Spotcheck - Since most of the sources are books, I will do a quick one. Note: All of the sources referenced here are from this revision.

Source 5 is cited inline, leading to a website containing the law stated in the sentence, Source 6 does not mention the "Amando Guerrero" stated in the sentence, while it states everything else. Source 7 and 8 is proper,

Source 28 leads to a JSTOR link, and is proper, and Source 29 is a reliable source.

Sources 32, 33, and 37 are secondary but kind-of reliable sources. Source 40 is a dead link.


2c. See a unverified paragraph in the lead and an unverified sentence in early history (1st paragraph). I also see another unverified paragraph in Early history (6th), I see a unverified sentence in the Establishment of the PKP subsection (4th paragraph).
2d. Suspiciously has copyvios (according to Earwig) but that was because of the organization names.
4. Neutral: I don't see any biased words breaking the NPOV guideline and the Words to Watch guideline, good to go.
3. Broad: Addresses the main points in the lead and does not miss any points, good to go.
5. Stable: No reverts and edit wars in the article history, good to go.
6. Illustrated: I see lots of pictures, easily good to go. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Establishment of the PKP (1st paragraph): Move sentence. " (delete replace with Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP, Communist Party of the Philippines), a new political party) was
organized from members of the KAP[2] and KPMP,[13] (move, Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP, Communist Party of the Philippines))" I'm confused what you want me to replace? FloridaMan21 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FloridaMan21 Sorry that it seems confusing, you delete "a new political party" and replace it with Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP, Communist Party of the Philippines), then you delete the other hint of the party (the end of the sentence). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one more to go! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finished, thank you so much! Hopefully the article meets the standards to become a Good Article FloridaMan21 (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.