Talk:History of Filipino Americans/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BlackfullaLinguist (talk · contribs) 10:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have reviewed the article, and unfortunately I believe it is far from being classified as a Good Article under Wikipedia's Good Article criteria, here are my concerns with the article:

1. The lead does not adequately summarise the topic, try expanding it with a better definition, it needs more information, and a few more hyperlinks. See WP:LEAD for more information

2. Parts of the article rely on a single source, and have been tagged as such. The existence of the tag precludes the article passing the criteria.

3. Following on from the above, the tagged section is about immigration in 2016 specifically, and seems out of place...why only 2016? Did something happen that year?

4. Overall, the topic is not broadly covered enough, and the information not presented cohesively. The immigration history and timeline should be combined together into a cohesive section perhaps broken up by relevant time periods.

Considering the above, I do not believe the article will be able to meet the criteria in a timely period and therefore should fail this nomination. Unless you disagree and/or can fix the issues discussed within 7 days I will finish this review. BlackfullaLinguist (talk)

@BlackfullaLinguist: The lead can be expanded, that is a hurdle that can be met. The section "Immigration from the Philippines to the United States in 2016" was written as part of a WikiEdu assignment by Arod 93215 (talk · contribs). It is factual for what is there, but gives undue weight to that specific year of information; should this content be entirely removed. Why is it that the timeline doesn't broadly cover the topic? If it doesn't what needs to be added? Is there list of verifiable events not meeting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackfullaLinguist and RightCowLeftCoast: reminder that this review is still open. --MrClog (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrClog: I can see this being closed as a failed GA Nomination because of the tag to the one section (part 2 & 3); I have addressed why that section exists, and would not be opposed to its deletion per WP:UNDUE, as it focuses and gives too much weight to a specific year of immigration. If that section is deleted then that addresses two concerns.

Lead has been improved, thus addressing part 1 of the concern of BlackfullaLinguist (talk · contribs). That said I entirely reject part 4; I have spoken to subject matter experts in the field who are members of Filipino American National Historical Society, and they don't seem to share that opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackfullaLinguise and RightCowLeftCoast: It has been another month since the last update, any word on this review. HawkAussie (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie and MrClog: I haven't read the article but would be prepared to pick up the assessment if RightCowLeftCoast returns, but BlackfullaLinguist doesn't. That said, I picked up another one of RCLC's GANs which was abandoned part way through (by the same assessor) - Talk:Landing of the first Filipinos/GA1 - and RCLC hasn't responded for two weeks. I was going to wait a month and see if anyone at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines wanted to take it over. Let me know if this one is in want of a replacement assessor. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: A section "Immigration from the Philippines to the United States in 2016" is largely the work of Arod 93215 (talk · contribs), who was a student editor. More recently Wakowako (talk · contribs) added two additional references to the section. That said, the section's scope is very small compared to the wide scope of the article. I suggest the section be relocated to a more appropriate article, or removed altogether.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, the original reviewer has made three Wikipedia edits in the past three months, all of them regarding an A-level review nomination they've made. There has been no activity on their GA reviews since August 11, four months ago today, and they have another review abandoned as they have done here. If you're still willing, please take over this review. That includes closing it, if RCLC ultimately proves inadequately responsive; there's no requirement that reviewers keep nominations open for weeks, much less months, if a nominator cannot address the issues raised. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BlueMoonset. Hi RightCowLeftCoast: I know that you are short on time for Wikipedia, and that you nominated this eight months ago. So before I commit a chunk of my time to reviewing the article, can I just check that you are able and willing to commit your time to responding? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is that we can close this as a not listed, and open up a new review under /GA2. At which point I am more than happy to work with the new reviewer, to improve the article to GA status.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 15:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. I have a lot of both RL and Wiki-demands on my time at the moment. Although if it sits, ping me - things will hopefully become less pressing. Shall I close it down? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: or do a new review in a subsection here, and then I will respond to the review, making changes requested. Either one works for me.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But I am a bit overloaded, so it may be a week or two before I can start it.

Restart review

I have done some copy editing, which you will want to check. If there is anything you don't like or don't understand, could you flag it up here.

"until the 19th century the Philippines was connected to the rest of New Spain in the Americas via the Manila galleon" I find "connected to" a bit of a misleading phrase. Maybe something like 'until the 19th century there was regular communication between the Philippines and the rest of New Spain in the Americas via the Manila galleon' or similar?
"By the 19th century, Filipinos were living in the United States, fighting in the Battle of New Orleans and the American Civil War; by the end of the century the first Filipino became a naturalized citizen of the United States, and the United States went to war with Spain, ultimately annexing the Philippine Islands from Spain." A slightly long sentence. Consider splitting.
"beginning with the Philippine-American War" Consider inserting '(1899–1902)'.
"Ramon Reyes Lala" Is there not a precise date for this?
Link "Ilocano" and "Visayan".
"Later, due to basing agreements with" I assume that "Later" means later than 1934 mentioned in the previous sentence. If so, why is the paragraph not in chronological order?
"they created a distinct Navy-related Filipino American immigrant community" Surely they didn't do this until after they left the navy?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I have modified the article to address some of the issues. Please let me know if my modifications are insufficient, so I can make additional changes. As for the year which Mr. Lala was naturalized, the sources do not give an exact year, but say it occurred somewhere in the 1890s (without being specific as to which year). Military based immigration (primarily naval) of Filipinos into the United States, the service member and their families, in literature about Filipino Immigration, is sometimes lumped into the second wave immigration, or seen as a unique immigration stream, concurrent to the different waves of immigration. This explains why it is placed in a semi-non-chronological order. Immigration of the service members family occurred during military service, and after military service was completed (if the service member naturalized and remained in the United States).--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 08:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits and explanations.

"they created a distinct Navy-related Filipino American immigrant community" Surely they didn't do this until after they left the navy?
"Navy based immigration stopped with the expiration of the military bases agreement in 1992;[24] yet it continues in a more limited fashion." It can't have both "stopped" and "continues". You need to either explain or rephrase.
"File:Rizal-25.jpg" needs a tag indicating why it is PD in the US.
"File:Manila American Cemetery and Memorial.jpg" needs a tag indicating why it is PD in the Philippines.
"the overall average LPR immigrants" LPR needs to be given in full.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Recent round of modifications requested, made. Except for adding a Philippine PD tag for the file "Manila American Cemetery and Memorial". None-of the PD tags for the Philippines appear appropriate as it is not a work of the Philippine government, or an older photo; even though it was released into the PD by the United States government, which the photograph publisher is a part of.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 08:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that it is PD in the Philippines. At a hard push, I think that we can go with just the US PD status for GA, so leave it.

"Nuestra Senora de Esperanza": Ships' names should be in italics.
"The first American trading ship" Could it be made clearer that in this case "American" means United States of?
"Prior to this year, but after On May 1, the United States Navy decisively defeated Spain in the Battle of Manila Bay" I struggle to understand this. Could you have a look at it?
"Benito Legarda and Pablo Ocampo becomes the first Resident Commissioner of the Philippines" Should that be 'Commissioners'?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1936: see Fe del Mundo. You may wish to reword.
1942-1944: What does this have to do with Filipinos in America?
October 1944; 1944-1945: ditto.
Filipino Naturalization Act: why is this bolded?
"Larry Asera becomes the first Filipino American elected in the Continental United States." Could you provide a little information as to where this was and to what office?
What is the difference between "first Filipino American" and "first Filipino"? If none, could you standardise on one.
1977: this seems to be trivia; why is it significant? Ditto: "International Hotel in Manilatown, San Francisco is demolished."
"US Postal worker Joseph Ileto murdered in a hate crime in Chatsworth, California." why is it significant?
2001: Why select this one? See, eg, List of memorials to Bataan Death March victims#Memorials#United States.
"a Freeway overpass is named Itliong-Vera Cruz Memorial Bridge in San Diego County" Seems trivial. Who is Itliong-Vera Cruz?
"Ralph Deleon, is convicted of provide material support to terrorists." Explain its relationship to the article topic or delete.
"EGOT" needs expanding.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: apologies, my editing time has been severely curtailed as of recently. Let me get to this.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I have addressed some of the issues which were last brought up on 10 January.

The Philippines was part of the United States during the American period, 1899-1946; until 1935, all Filipinos were American nationals (see https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030112.html ). As such all Filipinos during this time were Filipino Americans, and history experienced by them could be argued to be Filipino American history. That said, I hid content about events in the Philippines during World War II, as it didn't pertain to people of Filipino ancestry who were/had resided in the United States.

As for the Firsts Filipino and First Filipino American, the context largely falls between pre-Philippine Island independence, and post-Philippines independence. As all Filipinos prior to 1946, held allegiance to the United States, and prior to from 1899 to 1935 all Filipinos were non-citizen U.S. Nationals. Therefore, they were American as a population, even if often not treated equally to the majority of the Population (similar (or worse) to treatment experienced by other racial and ethnic minorities during that time). As it is not needed to say a Californian American or a Oklahoman American, prior to 1946, there was not a need to subdivide the population of Filipinos from the Philippines, from the Filipinos in the United States, for descriptive purposes. If you feel that this should be better iterated, that is something that can be included.

Larry Itliong and Philip Vera Cruz were to of the more prominent Filipino Americans in the farm labor movement in the California Central Valley, while there were others, they are two of the most notable. Prior to the naming of the Middle School, the bridge on the Filipino-American Highway, was a significant achievement in attempting to elevate the notability of the two people in the recollection in the context of the Farm Labor Movement (which was one of the criticisms of the movie Chavez).

Fine. So say so. Maybe something like 'a Freeway overpass in San Diego County is named Itliong-Vera Cruz Memorial Bridge after Larry Itliong and Philip Vera Cruz, who were prominent Filipino Americans in the farm labor movement in the California Central Valley'

Joseph Ileto death is significant in the Filipino American community, as it was an instance of a hate crime occurring against a Filipino American, a population which is often overlooked when it comes to racial discrimination, and hearkens back to experiences of Filipinos being targeted cause of their race/ethnicity earlier in the 20th Century. While many news reports about the events surrounding the death of the postman highlighted the attackers targeting of the Jewish American facility, the death of Ileto cause of him being a Filipino American, is often a side note in non Asian American and/or Filipino American media.

Fine. Then state and source that it was, eg, iconic as the first widely acknowledged hate crime against Filipino Americans, or sparked unusually widespread condemnation, or something to distinguish it from all of the other hate murders.

Ralph Deleon (a legal permanent resident, and not a U.S. Citizen, but still within the scope/definition of who is a Filipino American), while not the only Filipino American convicted criminal, was given highlighted notability at the national level during the 2016 United States Presidential Election, as his conviction was mentioned during a campaign speech. A notable/reported portion of the Filipino American media saw this as a continuation of the perpetual foreigner stereotype being foisted upon the entire population by then-presidential candidate.

Again fine. But get this, succinctly, into the article.

Let me know what else I need to do, and thanks for your ongoing patience regarding this effort to elevate this article's quality level.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments above. Ileto is the one I am struggling with, but see what you can do. It is, IMO, looking really good. No need to worry - too much - about time. Although I think that you are nearly there. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I have made modifications aligned with the recommendations made above. I hope this further clarifies the reason why Ileto and Deleon are both prominent and notable individuals in more recent Filipino American history, even if they are not verified First Filipino American to XYZ (first hate crime death of a Filipino likely traces back to one of the early 20th Century race riots; and from a U.S. Government perspective, insurgent forces during the post-Philippine-American War could be perceived as terrorists after the First Republic leadership had surrendered).--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not really happy about the notability of Ileto, but, as it is the only blip in an otherwise good quality article, I will let it go. Congratulations; a lot of work has clearly gone into this and it is a worthy good article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: As seen by the references I have provided about Ileto, much has been written by Filipino and Asian Americans in reliable sources of Ileto, sufficiently enough that the individual meets WP:GNG, but as all surround the postal carrier's connection to the shooting at the Jewish Community Center, the biography is redirected per WP:BIO1E. As stated in many of the reliable sources provided in this article about Ileto and as stated in this article his death even in the context of the shooting is "often overlooked". This relates the the larger "invisible minority" (WaPo, Psychology Today, etc.) view of the subjects of the main article, which this article is a sub-article of, Filipino Americans. If there is someway to include that context in the death of Ileto, please help me to improve that part of the article.

Thanks for passing this article, and I look forward to continued interaction in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:29, 21 February 2020 (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