Wikipedia:Peer review/Philippines/archive1

Philippines

I just want to know what people think of this article, and how it can be made better. Being from the Philippines myself, I'm interested in knowing how the article looks through objective eyes. First of all, I realize there are no references, and that's a real problem that needs to be remedied. With that aside, I'd like to hear some constructive criticism. :) Coffee 14:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long sections need to be summarised. The article on the whole needs to be copyedited. For reference, please India which is used to model many other country-based featured articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks quite nice. I compared it to some of the previous nation FA articles and have a few suggestions:

In the history section I'd like to see a little more about the settlement of the archipelago prior to European contact.
The "See also" section of the Australia, Cambodia and India articles are nicely organized. Can something like that be done?
There are no sections on Transportation or Foreign relations, such as are found on other nation pages. I think the later especially is an important sub-topic on nation pages.
Do there need to be two countries templates down at the bottom? Cambodia, of example, only uses "Countries in Southeast Asia".
Most of the other country articles have a separate section for States and territories, whereas this article has merged administrative divisions and government.
Could the bulleted list of regions be converted into a nice table comparable to this: South_Africa#Provinces?
Optionally you could include a section on flora and fauna, or ecology.

Thanks! — RJH 16:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines has incredibly unique flora and fauna which should really make its way into the article with its own section heading if not a summary + new article. --Aranae 04:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, I know you mentioned them already, but the lack of references would unfortunately stop this article from making the Good Article list never mind the FA list. When they are being added it would also be good if inline citations were included. This: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite.php helped me do references in previous articles with a lot less pain than previous formats of footnotes and refs. It keeps track of numbers and you can use the same ref multiple times by just using the ref name from the second time you use it onwards. Regards SeanMack 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]