Talk:Lapulapu/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 12:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- General
- Info box
- I don't think this is the appropriate template box to use considering only his flourish date is known? Wouldn't a normal picture template do?
- Lead
- The Philippines regards him as the first Filipino hero → He is regarded as the first Filipino hero
- The Philippines regards him as the first Filipino hero because he was the first native to resist Spanish colonization through his victory over the explorer Ferdinand Magellan. → Very long sentence, needs a clause in here somewhere.
- You've used American English dialect spelling (honor) but you're using British English language formatting of dates.
- which happened at → which took place at
- I can't understand why the lead has one sentence/line paragraphs?
- You call him a ruler in the lead, but Datu in the info box, which is inconsistent.
- Name
- The historical name of Lapu-Lapu is controversial. → Says who?
- The earliest record of his name is from the Italian explorer Antonio Pigafetta who accompanied Magellan in the Philippines. → Source?
- I don't think saying "etc." is acceptable.
- Early life
- The only known record of Lapu-Lapu before the arrival of the Spanish was in the pre-colonial oral chronicles from the reign of the last king of Cebu, Rajah Tupas (d. 1565). → Source?
- This was compiled and written in Baybayin in the book Aginid, Bayok sa Atong Tawarik ("Glide on, Odes to Our History") in 1952 by Jovito Abellana. → Source?
- The chronicle records the founding of the Rajahnate of Cebu by a certain Sri Lumay (also known as Rajamuda Lumaya), who was a prince from the Hindu Chola dynasty of Sumatra. → Source?
- His sons, Sri Alho and Sri Ukob, ruled the neighboring communities of Sialo and Nahalin, respectively. → Source?
- The islands they were in were collectively known as Pulua Kang Dayang or Kangdaya (literally "[the islands] which belong to Daya"). → Source?
- The islands they were in were collectively known as Pulua Kang Dayang or Kangdaya (literally "[the islands] which belong to Daya"). → Source? (See where I'm going with this)
- Battle of Mactan
- Why is there a one line/sentence paragraph near the end?
- Religion
- The religion of Lapu-Lapu is also controversial. → You can't make sweeping statements like this.
- Indeed, the Visayans were noted → Way, way, wayyyy too conversational.
- References
- A lot of them are missing dates and access dates.
- You've used two styles of writing the dates (20 and 39 are different, for example)
- 40 hasn't even been formatted.
- Outcome
It's really obvious that this doesn't meet GA criteria and never did. The whole article reads too informal and conversational, and does not represent what a GA is supposed to signify. I last, quick ditch attempt at some editing in between your nomination and having your other nominations revoked hasn't really paid off, either. A lot more issues are present that what I have cared to go through, because to be honest, it's not my responsibility to go through and highlight every single thing that is wrong here when no effort has been made on your part to even try and make it better in the first place. May come as no surprise, but I'm failing this article based on issues with structure, language, sourcing and formatting. — ₳aron 18:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)