Talk:Diosdado Macapagal/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
There are quite a few short sub-sections in the Presidency section. Would it be possibly to combine any of these?

There are some short paragraphs (one sentence) in the lead. These should be combined with the other paragraphs.

In the Economic policy section, it says "The peso devalued from P2.64 to the US dollar..." Was this in response to the currency controls imposed by previous administrations, or the free market floating under Macapagal?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References 1 & 8 (The Macapagals), as well as the external link to this site, are dead.

The last piece referenced to Ref #7 (About the Author), especially the "notably distinguishing himself in debates" part, needs an extra reference. About the author pieces are written specifically to be promotional of the author, and so relying on them for subjective information such as the author "notably distinguishing" themselves is not a good idea.

Please take care of the dubious tag in the Independence Day section (also see the talk page note regarding this).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Did no one criticize this man? There is no mention in this article of people who didn't think he was good and perfect - all that is talked about is how wonderful he was. Was there really nothing in the sources of people who criticized him?
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I think that the lead image needs a fair use rationale.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article, but there are a few issues that need to be taken care of before it is of GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As no work has been done on this article in the intervening week, I am now failing the article. Once these concerns have been addressed, the article can be brought back to GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]