Talk:First landing of Filipinos in the United States/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BlackfullaLinguist (talk · contribs) 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the reviewer of your other article 'History of Filipino's in America' after noticing this article, I believe the two should be combined. Some notes though for this article in any case:

1. The name is a bit ambiguous and perhaps should include 'in America' or something. I am Austalian, when I saw the name I assumed it meant their first landing in the Philippines.

2. There is not enough broad coverage, the aftermath section kind of glosses over 300 years, nothing to mention for the the 16th to the 19th centuries?

3. The background section goes off topic, background would assume 'the background for the journey', not a thousand year history of the people. This section needs a rewrite to stay on topic.

4. The article is not broad enough and doesn't include information on the demographics of those who arrived? I can't actually see how many people there even were.

In light of the above, I do not think the article will meet the criteria without substantial edits. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackfullaLinguist: This article meant for only a single event, not the entirety of the History of Filipino Americans. The article name was chosen based off of the name of the historical marker placed in Coleman Park, Morro Bay in 1995. The aftermath section is limited in scope to the aftermath crew that made the landing, follow on Manila Galleon landings in California, the impact the first contact with the Chumash people had on them, and the obscurity of the event which is the subject of the article that is further acknowledged in the aftermath section. Due to the surviving documents the exact number of individuals in the first landing party is not stated specifically, thus we cannot provide a specific number as that would be OR. The background section gives background of the Spaniards in the Pacific (to include the Manila Galleons), Chumash people, and the Luzon Indios (Filipinos), as well the specific background of the voyage that led to the event which is the subject of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrClog: this GAR has also been open for over a month, and my response has not been responded to. Perhaps another reviewer can take it over if this review has been abandoned, so we can collaborate to improve this article to get it to GA status.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RightCowLeftCoast, I'll assess this one. It looks interesting. Give me a couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few copy edits which you will want to check. I have been on the bold side, so please flag up anything you don't like or don't understand.

"Inland expeditions were prohibitive" Do you mean 'prohibited'? If not, could you explain how, or in what way they were prohibitive?
"attempts to contour the coastline" Do you mean 'survey'? Or perhaps 'follow'?
Either all cites of works should give publication locations or none should. Currently one, cite 17, does. If you were to delete "Austin", you would be fine.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)|3=alt[reply]

Cites 7, 33 and 34: Is there a reason for the quotes after the citation information?
"the events at Plymouth Rock" I know that there is a Wikilink, but could you add a brief inline explanation; for the benefit of non-US citizens?

That's all I have. A fascinating, well written and well researched article. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Sorry for my delay in getting back to editing Wikipedia. I will try to edit more, with what limited time I have available.

The reason for the quotes were due to WP:EXTRAORDINARY; the claim that the event which is the subject of this article, but had been largely unrecognized until the early 1990s, and that it establishes Filipinos as the first Asian in the modern United States, North America, and the Americas, may be challenged. Therefore quoting the sources, gives creedence to the claim repeated here on Wikipedia. If for style reasons, it is felt that the quotes are not needed, I can remove them.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.

The quotations: If I had wanted to emphasise them, I would have put the quotes in line, with appropriate attribution. But it's your call. I don't see it as an extraordinary claim by the way - it has been nationally recognised - and would have been happy to let the sources, which are good and wide, speak for themselves. So strike this on as an issue. Ping me when you have a response for my other four comments. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I believed I have made edits that resolve the four other issues which you brought up.

The first issue was about word prohibitive. It was a spelling error. I also included an additional reference showing that it was prohibited for Spanish Galleons to conduct further seaborne exporation

The second issue was a copy edit suggestion, and I agreed with your wording and made the change.

I removed the location of publication.

I have added a footnote about why Plymouth Rock is significant.

Please let me know if there is anything else I need to improve.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, with tidying up those trivial issues you have met all of the criteria. As I wrote above, a fascinating, well written and well researched article. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed