Talk:Demographics of Filipino Americans/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 01:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing, might be a day or two to get back with a full review (or maybe not, I have no self control). Wugapodes (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
See comments in results section
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

~~After a read, the lead feels like it might be a little short for an article of this size. I may be wrong though.~~
69 Percent of Filipino Americans are foreign born, and 77 percent are United States Citizens. This sentence is very ambiguous. Does "foreign born" mean they were born outside the Philippines or outside the United States? Also, because the two clauses are connected, I'm unsure if the two statistics are related. As worded, it could be interpreted that 77% of the 69% of foreign born Filipino Americans are United States citizens. Its complicated because people born outside the US can be US citizens so the "foreign born" part doesn't help to clear things up.
Filipino Americans are also the largest subgroup of Overseas Filipinos; This should be placed before the sentence about life expectancy of Filipino Americans. The paragraph should start with talking about the demographics within the group and then move into talking about generalities of the group as a whole.
While compliance with MOS:PERCENT is not required per the GA criteria, the article should be consistent as both "%" and "percent" are used in the text. I've tried to change as many as I see, but I may have missed a few so give it a once over as well.
Will need more time to give a once over before striking Wugapodes (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were a couple of problems with subject-verb agreement that I found. I tried to fix them as I found them, but again, I may miss some so be sure to give it a once over to double check.
Will need more time to give a once over before striking Wugapodes (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Filipino Americans are the largest group of Overseas Filipinos, and the majority were born overseas Same problem with "born overseas" as I had above with "foreign born"
Not yet fixed.
Among Asian Americans, Filipino Americans are the most integrated in the American society, "acculturated and economically incorporated". The quote could be better incorporated. Maybe something like "with [position] Don Nakanishi saying..."
Reading through it, I feel the "Population" section may be better titled as "Demographics"
I'll need a rationale for why "Population" was kept. You don't have to change it, I'm just wondering why it is used as it seems inaccurate. Wugapodes (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Filipino American women are more likely to marry outside of their ethnicity (38.9%) than Filipino American men (17.6%) Are the percentages in parentheses absolute or relative percentages?
This needs to be fixed still Wugapodes (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and four others in Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes. Were they known as Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes at the time of settlement? If not they should be clarified with "present day Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes." I don't know much about Louisiana history so they very well might have been called such at the time.
were "discovered" by a Harper's Weekly journalist in 1883 Why is "discovered" in quotes? Is it a quotation of a source or meant to imply an alternate meaning? If the latter, that meaning should be clarified.
An additional 2,000 were documented in New Orleans with their roots dating back to about a hundred years This statement needs to be clarified as "about a hundred years" has no clear reference date. 100 years from today, 1965, 1763, or another date? It's unclear as to which is correct. Also, "were documented" when?
During this wave of migration Filipino men outnumbered women by about 15 to 1 In the Philippines, United States or in terms of Filipinos moving to the US?
making the Philippines become the largest source of healthcare professionals to the United States. This sentence is awkwardly worded, and I don't think I understand it enough to easily revise it.
Filipinos made up 60 percent (9,158) of nurses immigrating to the United States, with Canadians being a distant second (3,034) If you're going to put a percentage and total number figure for one member of comparison, you should put it for both.
the first documentation of a Filipino residing in California did not occur until 1781, a fifty-one-year-old Antonio Miranda Rodriguez. This sentence needs to be rephrased as I don't believe 1781 is a fifty-one-year-old. ;)
Initial part of the expedition that would established Pueblo de Los Ángeles, Antonio Miranda Rodriguez was not present when Pueblo de Los Ángeles was founded as he stayed behind in Baja California due to illness in his family, and arrived in Alta California later. I don't understand this sentence, is information missing that maybe was removed in a previous revision?
Why is "Crosstown Freeway" in quotation marks?
The subscript "Table 1b" should be rendered parenthetically rather than using subscript.
Both Hawaii and Hawaiʻi are used in the article. Usage should be consistent.
The first Filipino known by name in Texas was Francisco Flores, who came to Texas by way of Cuba in the nineteenth century began to reside in Port Isabel and would later call Rockport home. I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Could it be reworded?
Following the annexation of the Philippines, Filipinos began to migrate to Texas due primarily as employees of American officers who served in the Philippines This sentence as well. I don't understand why they were drawn to Texas (that's not a joke, I don't understand it from the sentence).
In 1990, there were 43,229 Filipinos in New York City, with the number increasing to around 54,993 in 2000, making it the city with the fourth largest population of Filipino Americans within its city limits in 2000. City within a city?
There are times where there is percent followed by an absolute number in parentheses, and times when absolute numbers are given, followed by an appositive percentage. The style should be consistent. Not that absolutes can't be used in the prose, just that if both are given, a style should predominate. For example, In 2000, Nevada was home to 31,000, 2 percent, of all Filipino immigrants this should be 2 percent (31,000) as that's the style used predominantly in the article so far.
this population increased to 11 in 1920, and 46 in 1930.[1] In 1990, Filipinos were the largest population of Asian Pacific Americans in the state, with the second largest population being Indian Americans. I assume there was a substantial increase that led to them being the largest population, and that number or percentage should be stated here.
foreign-born Filipinos had a lower poverty rate than native-born Filipinos where is foreign and where is native?
The superscript figure references should be regular parenthetical references.

(Optional) There are a number of dead links that should be dealt with at some point, you can use the link in the box at the right to find them.

Results

On Hold for 7 days. A very thorough article. My general concern is that at times the article seems to get too mired down in minutiae and loses focus. Another aspect to keep an eye on is making sure to use consistent style throughout the article. Featured articles I believe require more stringent adherence to the WP:MOS, so it may be useful to look through that before committing to a style, but consistency is good. Finally, something to watch out for is ambiguity. When talking about two countries across time, it is very easy for readers to lose reference points and antecedents. While you may know the meaning, it isn't always conveyed well, see above. In general it is better to be a little more explicit with things, especially like "foreign born" or "overseas" than too vague as I'd rather leave the article saying "it gave me too much information" than "I didn't understand the information it gave me." Be sure to give the article a thorough look through for mistakes as it is very long and I am bound to have missed some things that need fixing or even messed it up, plus it helps you as editors rarely read their articles in full. Regardless, it truly is a very nice article that with a little bit of work to clear up the issues above, can become a GA. Happy editing. Wugapodes (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Extended until at least 27 July as RightCowLeftCoast seems to be on vacation until the close date and obviously won't be able to implement the rest of the changes by then. Wugapodes (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final extension until 4 August as RightCowLeftCoast still hasn't edited wikipedia since the 16 July. However if they, or another editor, don't respond to the review by then I'm going to close it. Wugapodes (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Listed after a month on hold and the reviewer being absent, I'm going to close the review. Hopefully the article continues to be improved. Wugapodes (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally getting to this

@Wugapodes: sorry for the long delay regarding getting to this review. The above review is very well done, and I am treating it as a peer review, as it has already been closed. I had several long Wikibreaks between the time this review was initialized and now (April 2018). Per work in progress I will address the issues brought up.
I have attempted to comply with MOS:PERCENT, as seen here.
regarding the title of population section, I have changed it; the entire article is a sub-article of the Filipino Americans article, and thus it is all demographics. That specific section is about national numbers, as compared to historical demographics, population concentrations, or specific topics. I hope this helps.
In regards to Miscegenation, or marriage outside of race, I believe the percentages according to the reference are relative to the total number of marriages experienced within the two different populations (Filipina Americans and Filipino Americans (Filipina/Pinay/Female Filipino Americans)(Filipino/Pinoy/Male Filipino Americans)).
Regarding the Louisiana parishes question, according to the Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana article, it is for that parish, but not for the Jefferson Parish, but that statement is unreferenced. Therefore, it appears that it is present day, present day for when that reference was written, being 1995 at the earliest. I am unsure if the parish boundaries have changed in the past 20 years, so I have made the change as requested above.
I have modified the "discovered" quote, to better clarify. The settlement existed prior to the Harper documentation, and thus the quotation, I have changed it to reflect that better.
I will continue on working on the points brought up, but must break for now due to the Starbucks I am editing from, beginning to close for the evening.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got to the rest of the points, with these edits. If there is anything else, please let me know. This will help when I nominate this article again.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]