Talk:2010 Philippine Bar exam bombing

Suggestion on cross link

I was sort of surprised that there was no link between this page and Philippine Bar Examination. I suggest that the current link to the Philippine Bar be changed to the exam, i.e. [[Integrated Bar of the Philippines|Philippine Bar]] examinees to [[Philippine Bar Examination|Philippine Bar examinees]]. OTOH, in the other direction, I think that there should be a link in the "See Also" section of Philippine Bar Examination to this article. Comments?Naraht (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know there was an article for the exam. I'll relink accordingly. Moray An Par (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Took care of the addition on Philippine Bar ExaminationNaraht (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Philippine Bar exam bombing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I am currently reading the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

Lead

• What theory? (second paragraph)
• A couple of the paragraphs (second and third especially) may need to be merged.

Incident and response

• "People in the area thought that the noise from the explosion was from fireworks that are a normal part of the post-bar celebrations. A commotion followed as people panicked and ran for safety." - Wouldn't they have to realize that it was a bomb first?
• Manila Doctors Hospital - does it not have an apostrophe? (i.e. not Manila Doctors' Hospital?)
• The third paragraph should probably be merged with the second, near the casualties figure.

Lazaga accused

Instead of writing (trans) after a translated quote, perhaps you should use {{cref}}, like used in Sitti Nurbaya so that the original can be read as well, but not intrude on the text.

Indictment

"... (for almost killing the two amputees) ..." implies that they were amputees prior to the blast. Rephrasing may be in order.

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Perhaps Lazaga accused and Identification and surrender to Binay should be standardized, as having Lazaga's name in a header but not Nepomuceno's seems POV.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Looks fine. Spotchecks on a couple sources show no paraphrasing problems.

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

Looks fine.

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Fine, aside from the header issue above.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   Looks stable to me, most recent edits were for improvement and took place over a month ago.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   I am worried about the FUR for both non-free images. They seem to indicate that the use is primarily for identification of the suspect, which is generally not considered a valid reason for fair use. The identification card, if produced by the government, may be Public Domain but I cannot guarantee it. The court image should probably be removed.

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   Fine.

   Summary: On hold Please address text issues per G1 and image issues per G6a. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
   • No reply in 11 days. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

   External links modified

   Hello fellow Wikipedians,

   I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Philippine Bar exam bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

   • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902022852/http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/facts_and_figures/dlsu-faculty.asp to http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/facts_and_figures/dlsu-faculty.asp
   • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401210635/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/benchmark/2007/09/090721.php to http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/benchmark/2007/09/090721.php

   When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

   This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

   • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
   • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

   Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)