Talk:Pensionado Act/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Airplaneman (talk · contribs) 09:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Yoninah (talk · contribs) mentioned nearly a year ago, this article holds promise. I'm going to take my time to read it before providing feedback below, as this is my first GA review in quite a while. Expect initial comments in 2 to 3 days. Given my sporadic editing patterns as of late, I expect the review to take longer than a week. Expect me to check in at least once every other day to respond to comments or concerns as they arise. I look forward to conducting this review. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 09:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be providing comments by section, and I will make minor grammatical changes myself while going through the article. I do think that the writing style could use some work overall, and I will try and help with that. For example, something I've noticed is the widespread use of the semicolon, sometimes in places where it isn't the best suited. I've also asked two friends of mine (not Wikipedians) who are interested in this subject matter to provide some general feedback. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 20:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know under each of my comments when you've addressed them, or if you'd like further clarification or have an objection. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 00:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once my concerns are addressed, I'll go through the article again for another copyedit. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 21:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

General comments

I'm personally not much of a fan of having citations in the lead section for topics like this. MOS:LEADCITE says: Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. I don't believe any of this material is particularly contentious, and a good article will repeat "lead" information in more detail later in the article. I therefore suggest finding new homes in the body of the article for all citations in the lead.
I know the program's start date is included in the infobox, but I think it should be in the text of the lead as well.
Is there a specific end date to the program, or do sources only state the end year?
This point is mentioned in the article body, but I think it's important to include at least a sentence in the lead on the political motivations of the United States in having this program.

Specific comments

From the initial 100 students, the program provided education in the United States to around 14,000 This appears to be incorrect. The source (Lee, 2013) actually says that 14,000 Filipinos total enrolled in US educational institutions between 1910 and 1938. This does not mean that they were all pensionados. Regardless, this figure does not cover the entire 1903 to 1943 timeframe of the act. Indeed, according to Danico, "By the time the program ended in 1943, close to 500 pensionados were able to participate" (Danico, 2014, p. 681).
The alumni of the program went on to work for the government in the Philippine Islands;[6] they would go on to play important roles in the education of their fellow Filipinos, and be influential members of the Philippine society. I would reverse the order of this sentence because it is unclear. As it stands, I'm made to think initially that all program alums went to work for the government. I might even simplify it to say: "The alumni of the program went on to be influential members of Philippine society." The source from which this sentence was originally drawn (Lee, 2013, p. 53), lists "agriculture, business, education, engineering, and government" as examples of "high-status" jobs to which the initial 100 pensionados returned. I think it's not great to just pick "education" and "government" from the list in this way. Saying pensionados played an important role in the education of their fellow Filipinos could even be read as disingenuous (re: the political aspects of this program: "Such a history of schooling within colonization assisted in the preparation of Filipinos for independence, but it also brought about the inculcation of beliefs in the supremacy of U.S..." (Danico, 681)). Indeed, Danico says that the program brought "mostly men and members of the elite" to the US for school.
During World War II, Japan initiated a similar program during its occupation of the Philippines. I know it's included later in the body, but I think it might be nice to include the program's name in the lead.

Changes made by Airplaneman

specify which congress

Background

General comments

As per MOS:MILTERMS (last bullet point: Terms, such as soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and coast guardsman, are to be written in the lower case when referencing to an individual or a group of individuals…), the word "soldier" as it is used throughout this section should not be capitalized.
The second paragraph was a bit confusing for me at first. This is because the paragraphs before and after it talk about Filipinos going to the United States. This paragraph, however, talks about Americans going to the Philippines. We need a transition sentence at the beginning of this paragraph to note this switch in perspective, and to clarify why this information is important to the story you're trying to tell in this section. Here's what I think you're trying to say in this section: Wealthy Filipinos were encouraged to emigrate to countries such as the United States for education. The United States, hoping to further their influence on the Philippines, even set up educational shop in the country (this bit I inferred; it's not explicit in the second paragraph as of now). This tactic didn't work out well because there weren't enough teachers; instead, Governor General Taft asked that more be done, and the Pensionado Act resulted. Is this a fair assessment?

Specific comments

During the Spanish era of the Philippines... For someone not as familiar with Filipino history, it'd be good to give a date range and possibly link to an article here.
This followed a trend of well-to-do families sending students to the United States I think we need to further specify which families these were. Maybe say This followed a trend of well-to-do Asian families sending students to the United States or something similar.

Changes made by Airplaneman

Enactment

General comments

I think the section title should be changed to "Implementation" or some variation thereof; enactment, to me, seems like a very preliminary, beginning-phase thing, whereas I feel like the story of this section is the overall implementation of this program, including past its enactment.
The distinction between the roles of this section and the one following it ("Impact") are not entirely clear. I suggest merging the first two paragraphs of "Impact" into this section, as they are more informational and less about "impact," and also having standalone sections for the three subsections that are currently under "Impact".
It's important to list the date ranges of the program up front at the beginning of a section like this. I suggest including them as the second sentence in this section. Dong, 2016 lists the date ranges of the program as 1903–1914 and then 1918–1943. That provides more information than what is currently in this section: There was a pause in the program between 1915 and 1917. The next section of this article then says, From 1903, until 1938, pensionados studied in the United States, with the majority returning to the Philippines. Which date range is it? Ah, and now I see why this article says that 14,000 pensionados completed their education in this time period—it's because Austin and Willard claim it so. This is a major source discrepancy, and it should be addressed. My preliminary impression based on the sources in this article is that Austin and Willard are not correct—and that Dong and Danico are correct—but I'd like you to figure this out for sure.

Specific comments

In some areas of the United States, the pensionados were some of the first Filipinos to immigrate to those areas. It'd be nice to have some examples, if you can find some.
During the second year of the program, the first Pinay pensionados were chosen; however, the number of Filipinas chosen for the program created a gender imbalance favoring Pinoy pensionados. This is confusing wording. By writing like this, we lose some crucial information. I would try to make this sentence more clear to say that far fewer Pinays than Pinoys were chosen. The source you draw from (Foner, et. al) is much clearer: "In 1904, of thirty-nine pensionados, only five were women".
Interestingly, Foner, et. al claim that there were 103 pensionados the first year; however, the article relies on Lee, who says that 100 pensionados came the first year. Is there a reason the number 100 was selected over 103? I wonder if there's a way to give a range here, if reliable sources disagree on the exact number.
In 1921, the Philippine government allotted ₱472,000 to support 111 pensionados This figure is difficult to interpret without context; would you be able to find figures for other years of the program?
The picture caption is a bit vague: what is "the Telecom Bureau"? Is it officially called the "Philippine Telecom Bureau"? I suppose I could assume that it's the Philippine Telecom Bureau, but it's unclear.

Changes made by Airplaneman

Impact

General comments

See above, re: section title

I love the paragraph on the professions of returning pensionados and the examples provided. Very interesting.

Specific comments

Known as "fountain pen boys", by 1920 nearly five thousand pensionados had attended American schools, receiving post-secondary education. This appears to be another source discrepancy; Danico claims 500 pensionados total ever made use of the program, whereas Scharlin (this source) says 5000 had made use of it by 1920. Which is it?
This discrimination was due to the view that the returning pensionados "legitimated U.S. colonial rule in the Philippines". It'd be better to not use a quote here and instead use original language. If we keep the quote (not my preference), we should put in the text who wrote it.
This negative reception of the pensionados was not limited to the Philippines, but was shared by some of the later Filipino immigrants to the United States who were not the children of the well-to-do in the Philippines, as shown in the writings of Carlos Bulosan. This sentence is awkward. I have to do some extrapolation and remember earlier facts from the article to realize that pensionados were rich, and therefore the non-pensionados in the United States were not rich. I'd explicitly remind the reader here that pensionados were rich and non-pensionados weren't to make the distinction clear, as long as the source supports it. I'd also split this into two sentences.
The link for source number 45, "Manalansan IV, Martin F.; Espiritu, Agusto F. "The Field" (PDF). NYU Press." just redirects me to nyupress.org. Is there a way to fix this link?
some of those Chinese students were attending using a similar government funding method known as the Boxer Indemnity. It might be worth mentioning Boxer Indemnity in the "similar programs" section as well.
these Filipinos started the second wave of immigration to the United States I'd clarify that this was the second wave of Filipino immigration. Also, I'd love a specific date range here. I think the source says 1903 to 1934.
In additional, laws barred Filipinos from professional employment, such as the ones in California. Do these laws have a name?
After the Philippines became an independent nation A year here would be nice.

Changes made by Airplaneman

copyedits

@Airplaneman: Just a reminder that this is still open and has not received much attention recently. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Thanks for the ping. I've elected to keep the nomination open, as per this convo. When Cow is ready, I'll be ready to jump back in to finish the review. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 00:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Airplaneman, it has been over two and a half months since the most recent post here, and nominator RightCowLeftCoast still hasn't made a single edit to address the review since it was completed on October 11. I realize that the nomination had waited for nearly a year before the review started, but if nothing is done in the near future this should be closed. You can always offer to take on a new review should RightCowLeftCoast address the issues you've raised here and renominate, so there isn't another long wait between nomination and review. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: apologies. My RL editing time has been significantly constrained. I would like to thank Airplaneman for the above critiques. As time becomes available I will seek to address each of the points. Apologies. If it is better felt that this nomination be closed, I can then address the above suggestions for improvement outside of a GA, and renominate. Otherwise, this nomination perhaps can remain open, and I can address them as time allows?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Airplaneman: Apologies for the delay. I have gone over the requests above, and made the recommended changes, as can be seen here (of which two edits were not mine). Please let me know of any additional modifications need to be made. Thanks in advance!--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BlueMoonset, for checking in. I understand the concern of having an article languish indefinitely in the depths of GA review holding limbo. I've been possibly more flexible with time here than I usually would be. RightCowLeftCoast, I'll take a look at the changes in the coming days. All the best, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 19:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review successful

Thank you again, RightCowLeftCoast, for your diligent work on an important and, for me, fascinating topic. I've done another read-through of the article and have made some additional changes. As it stands, I believe this article now meets the GA criteria. Improvements have been made in the article's writing and adherence to sourcing (the first two GA criteria), which were my main concerns at the beginning of the review. The remaining four GA criteria have been met.

For an article on a topic like this one, I think further improvement, such as for Featured Article candidacy, will be incremental and dependent on the publication of additional reliable source material. One thing I noticed while conducting the review is that coverage comes largely in the form of book sections or dissertations, which, while I found suitable for the task at hand (and often fascinating reads), presented tough challenges. The main hurdle was discrepancies in numbers between sources. Also, it's clear that the United States started this program in order to gain favor in the Philippines. I think that this political angle could be explored further.

Overall, this article provides a good overview of an important historical topic. I'm happy to pass it as a Good Article! Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 17:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]