Wikipedia:Peer review/Philippines/archive4

Philippines

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate in the near future as a FAC. The article has been expanded and revised over the previous months and recently has received a thorough copyedit from WP:GUILD.

Thanks, Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Sanglahi86. I'll look into the sourcing and references in a bit, with the standards of featured articles in mind. I hope you'll find my feedback helpful. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into those issues. I will try searching for better sources for those that you mentioned. For the book sources, since most book sources in the article use direct referencing, would using {{rp}} to cite different page numbers be better than {{sfn}}? (most FAs I have seen have used {{sfn}} though) Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, give me some time and I'll come back to it with a follow-up. Regarding which template to you, you could use either, there is no recommendation other than that it should be consistent. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• First of all, citation format is inconsistent. Some books are listed under bibliography while others are directly cited to and present under citations.  Used direct references (with {{rp}} for different page numbers)
• Duka 2008 (ref 100, 110) appears to be a high school level textbook. While college textbooks including undergraduate ones can be good tertiary sources for history (although depends), high school level ones dont generally undergo scholarly peer review and are usually too simplified, gloss over complexity and can occasionally represent misleading and/or outdated ideas. This would most likely not be considered a high quality reliable source necessary for the FA criteria if considered reliable source at all.
• Halili 2004 (ref 72, 76, 98), same problem as the one above. This one is an even more generalised than Duka 2008.
• Lazo 2009 (ref 295, 299), same problem as above, this time in relation to polsci.  Comment: This seems to be a college textbook; the publisher, Rex Book Store, specializes in law books, so I am unsure if a better source is required.
• McAmis 2002 (ref 45, 47) is published by a religious publishing house and the author appears to be a theologian. This too would not be considered a high quality reliable source if considered reliable source at all. Topics on religion need academic sourcing.  Used better sources
• Rottman 2002 (ref 135) appears to be a popular history book being used to source a death estimate during WW2, much better sourcing can be found for this.
• Ref 136, same issue as above and for the same material.
• Rowthorn et al. 2006 (ref 255, 622, 736) is a travel guide being used to source facts on topics related to biodiversity, architecture, etc. There are much better sources available for these topics, once again needs peer reviewed academic works.  Used better sources
• Sulit-Braganza 2005 (ref 238), another high school textbook, this time on earth science. Some of the material it is cited for is alongside peer reviewed work while for other material it is only cited alongside a primary source. Sourcing could be improved.  Comment: Not sure what to do here. The textbook cover page says it is a tertiary-level textbook; not a high school one. Removed source/citations since more reliable sources already support the claims
• Tofighian 2006 (ref 117, 680) is a dissertation which are not generally considered reliable unless it has gone through peer review and published in a reputable journal.
• Zibart 2001 (ref 722, 723) is a generalised book on cuisine by someone who appears to be an enthusiast. I understand that the same standards for topics related to cuisine may not be easily applicable but any author should at least be widely considered to be an expert or an established critic (preferably specifically with regards to Philippine cuisine), which doesn't appear to be the case here.

@Sanglahi86: It has been over a month since you have commented on this. Are you still working on the above comments? Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I have not addressed the other sources above because they are the best available sources I could find to support the claims. I have no objection if this peer review is closed, so that I could nominate it directly in WP:FAC for further comments and scrutiny. Sanglahi86 (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: I suggest replacing the sources when you can, as FAC will expect high-quality sources, especially for an article like this. Some places you can look for additional sources are WP:LIBRARY, doaj.org, archive.org, Google Scholar, Google Books, and your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip and links. I'll see what I can do about the sources. Regards. Sanglahi86 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: It has been another month without comment. Can this be closed? You can also choose to close this yourself if you want to nominate it for FAC. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello. You can close it since there appear to be no further comments. I have exhausted efforts in trying to find better sources for the remaining above comments/suggestions, but could not find better sources as replacements. Best regards. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you intend to have this this Peer Reviewed Sanglahi, I'll assist you in editing this article as I have library access. Will scour the libraries to find you better content.-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. If you can find better sources to replace those references listed above that have not been addressed (example: Zibart 2001), that would be great. Sanglahi86 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)