Wikipedia:Peer review/History of the Philippines/archive1

History of the Philippines

I've done a lot of work on this article over the past few weeks, taking it from a monolithic 80KB [1], spliting it into 6 sub-articles by time period, and practically rewriting the main article into a relatively lean 37KB. I'd like this peer review to just focus on the main History of the Philippines article, and what it needs to meet FA criteria. If this peer review turns out nicely I would really like to take the article all the way to FA status. :) Coffee 06:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick skim revealed a couple of problems from my perspective:

There are duplicate links to the same article. Cebu, for example, and both Spain and Spanish link to Spain in the same paragraph. There are many more examples. The style guide prefers linking only once, typically the first appearance in the article.
New Spain is noted as Mexico the second time it appears; shouldn't the note be with the first occurance? And this is another example of duplicate linking.
Can you put at least an introductory paragraph at the beginning of "American colonial period (1898-1946)" so that the first subcategory, "Philippine-American War" doesn't follow immediately? It flows better that way.
I prefer the end sections of See also / Notes / References / Further reading / External links, which is consistent with most articles. Most of your "General references" appear to be external links and none seem to be cited in the notes section, so perhaps it more accurately a "Further reading" section. Using another encyclopedia for a reference doesn't seem optimal to me; I would prefer to see a stronger source. I'm not sure how FAC reviewers will respond to these end section issues.

JonHarder 21:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments. I've fixed points #1, 2 and 3 that you mentioned. As for #4... all of those links were used as references, and I'm working on converting all of them to footnotes so perhaps the "General references" part could later be done away with. Coffee 16:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the automated suggestions: (1) Wikilink dates, (2) headings don't start with "The", (3) weasel words, (4) watch for redundancies, and (5) copyedit. I've taken care of #1 and #2. All the obvious weasel words have citations (and if any others remain, I'd appreciate someone pointing them out). As for #4 and #5... I've looked over the article many times, so I guess I've done what I can do. Coffee 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]