Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philippines/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Philippines

Nominator(s): Theparties (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a country in Asia that is also one of the most populous countries in the world. Theparties (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment It says the administrative divisions are current "As of March 2010". Is it possible to confirm that these are still the same as of 2014? Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Response There is a little change. Davao Occidental became a province last year but for the most part, it's the same.--Theparties (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I just clicked on the cities link, and it says "as of December 29, 2013, there are 144 cities" not 138 as you have in the article. I think all these numbers must be checked. Mattximus (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ive fixed it now. Thanks for pointing it out.--Theparties (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Talk:Philippines#FA?, with no prejudice against a renomination when the principal contributors to the article agree on nominating it at FAC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it really that unstable? It just looks like one minor issue regarding the mention of Jaime Sin. Tezero (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The was an eight month-long dispute that was only resolved this month. Its stable now.--Theparties (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am an editor of the Philippines article and the high degree of fact-checking and peer interaction in this article is great vis-a-vis the other the other featured articles about countries: Japan, India, Indonesia and etc. which have mostly remained static (As in India's, Japan's and Indonesia's case which reflects populations based on 2011 estimates while that of the Philippines is already at 2014). It is the activeness of the editor community behind the Philippines article which merits that the Philippines be in featured status. It has been at featured status before. And I remember that there has been 2 past failed attempts to get this back to featured status. The degree and frequency of repeated efforts expended just to have this re-featured would be one of the compelling reasons why it should finally be (re)featured. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious point, but the FA star is awarded for achievement not for effort. No matter how many times, or how hard, an editor (or a group of editors) tries to get an article featured, it won't pass FA until it meets the FA criteria. Your support does not address those criteria and so I anticipate that the FAC coordinators will give it little weight. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, mostly on sourcing concerns. There are multiple instances of missing citations, existing citations that are incomplete or wildly inconsistent, some unaddressed citation cleanup tags, visibly broken citations, and some apparently unreliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point us to the exact broken and unreliable sources and we will clean that up. Because honestly, I saw only one broken link after a cursory view of all the references. Substantiate your claims with prima facie evidence. Thank You. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal - Agree with Nikkimaria. Numerous areas with missing references (just check for missing references at the ends of paragraphs and you'll find most of the spots I'm concerned about) and several places where claims such as "Likewise, Tagaytay is a favored retreat." are made without references or clarification. One citation needed tag, one citation not found tag, three dead link tags, in addition to the 37!!! dead links that Toolserver picks up (see the report). In addition, broken reference formatting, incomplete references (at least two completely bare links, plus numerous others missing various other pieces of information), and a thorough check needed for reliability/high quality of sources. Overall a decent article, but not ready for FAC at this time. Dana boomer (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.