Talk:Philippine–American War/GA1

I'll take this one. Will get started soon. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	While the spelling is pretty good, the grammar is clunky.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead does not meet MOS, being mainly a summary of the aftermath of the war rather than a summary of the article about the war. I am a bit concerned that the title and scope are not the same.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Significant number of paragraphs that lack citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Unclear, the use of primary sources and first-person accounts makes this difficult to assess.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It seems to have too heavy a concentration on the aftermath and political machinations that followed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Really too big, nearly 8000 words of readable prose. There may need to be some WP:CONTENTFORKs to reduce the size of the article and make it more in summary style.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	hard to assess, I haven't looked into it too much due to the fact that I have quick-failed the article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	But the dual photo arrangement in the infobox is not encyclopaedic, I suggest selecting one would be best.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm quick-failing this article due to 1b and 2b