Self-nomination. Peer review wasn't as helpful as I hoped (see entry). I've done a lot of work on this article and it's a lot better than it used to be. Anyway, I request the community's support to make this article a Featured Article. If opposing, please try to be specific and constructive so I can do what I can to address your objections. Thanks! :) Coffee 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator (if that's not already implied). Coffee 18:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can do. I'm not an expert on Phillipine history, but I am a Filipino.--Edtalk c E 18:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment — I feel your pain, I have had bad experiences with PR in the past as well. I got tons of help last time, though; you win some, you lose some. Anyhow, here's my opinion:
- You need to avoid weasel words, for example: the Battle of Manila between Spain and the U.S. was perceived by some to be an attempt to exclude the Filipinos from the eventual occupation of Manila — Some = who?
- Not nearly enough references for such a long article. Some sections go completely unreferenced, while others have plenty in each paragraph (ie. Fifth Republic (1986-present) is well-sourced, but nothing in Independent Philippines and the Third Republic (1946-1972)).
- On a positive note, I really like the choice of photos, and the prose is quite well-done. ♠ SG →Talk 22:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments! I'm glad to know you approve of the images. As for references... yeah, the article needs more, considering its length. I've added a bunch of footnotes, particularly in the section you mentioned. The number of references is now up to 20 (or 34 if you count the footnotes used more than once), and I'll continue working on getting more. As for the weasely words... I do try to watch out for them, but I guess some snuck by me. I'll try to fix them up. Coffee 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of citations is up to 44. I've rewritten the paragraph of the weasel statement you pointed out. I've also scanned the article for other weasel words, and either reworded the statement or gave it citation. Coffee 13:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, you've got my support. ♠ SG →Talk 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Coffee 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, any chance of some book references? I don't think the LOC is the ultimate source for information on the history of any country. --Peta 01:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't think anything can really be an ultimate source of information. The Library of Congress Country Studies are actually listed at Wikipedia:Public domain resources, so I suppose it's good enough for Wikipedia. I did use just one book as a reference, and it's cited a few times in the article. Coffee 13:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alrighty... I've acquired this nice book by a notable historian (Teodoro Agoncillo), and I'll try sprinkling the article with citations, where applicable. :) Coffee 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Coffee 18:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object:Excellent work on the article. It is well written. The only problems I have are with the references. First of all, every statement on the article must be verified by a reliable source. Please refer to WP:V and WP:RS. Also, if you choose to use footnotes as your citations format, then the following source must be a footnote as well: Lacsamana, Leodivico Cruz (1990). Philippine History and Government, Second Edition. Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. For assistance, refer to WP:FOOT.--Edtalk c E 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've converted all refs to footnote form, and I've continued adding citations to the article. It now has 59 citations-- that's more than double the number there were at the start of this FAC nomination. Coffee 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of citations is now up to 77. Coffee 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Article now has 89 citations, and I think that's enough. Coffee 18:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, intro par doesn't have ANY sources. Except for that, your fine.--Edtalk c E 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you insist on citations in the lead? My reasoning on not having citations in the lead section was that it's just a short summary of the rest of the article, and doesn't introduce any new facts that aren't in other sections. Examples of other recently promoted FAs that do the same thing are Padmé Amidala, German occupation of Luxembourg in World War I, Ecclesiastical heraldry, Don Dunstan, and Summer of '42. Coffee 04:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support since my concerns have been addressed--Edtalk c E 23:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment:I think the article is great but some sections (like the spanish section) could still be expanded. Maybe someone should include spanish cultural contributions in the colonization part and a background paragraph on minor Philippine revolts, which may have contributed to the decline of spanish rule.23prootie 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yeah, all the sections could be expanded, but I've made them the length they are to conform with the article size guidelines. The general guideline is to keep articles at around 32KB, and the main prose of this article is about 37KB, which I think is a reasonable size for a country history article. Preferrably, more detailed info would go into sub-articles like History of the Philippines (1521-1898). Hmm... still, I guess we could fit in a few sentences about the minor revolts against the Spanish. I'll see what I can do..
Coffee 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This article is a very informative one. It really talks a lot about the Philippines than any other site in the internet. But still, as mentioned hereabove, the sources of the article should also be mentioned and some parts should be expanded. Kevin Ray 07:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]