This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manila hostage crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Manila hostage crisis was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on August 23, 2010. | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 23, 2013, August 23, 2017, August 23, 2020, and August 23, 2022. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Gatoclass ( talk) 04:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: – Quadell ( talk) 18:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I made proofreading improvements as necessary. What I could not fix myself, I have listed in the
#Manila hostage crisis prose problems section below.
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lede and infobox are quite good, and the "See also" is appropriate,
No problems. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There are areas for improvement. For one, sources in English should be used whenever possible, so that readers of the English Wikipedia can more easily check facts and get more information. (So if an English news source confirms a statement, that source should be used, rather than a source in Tagalog or Chinese.) Also, the article would be improved if there were separate sections for Notes and References, as is done in
Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon) or
Augmentative and alternative communication. However, I don't think either of these should be barriers to passing GA status.
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Inline citations are used correctly. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Except for one possible problem listed in the
#Manila hostage crisis prose problems section below, there is no original research detected.
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All basic questions seem to be answered by the article. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The diversion into precisely which news stations carried live coverage, in the "negotiations" section, is unnecessary and detracts from the flow of the article.
There are problems with the "List of hostages and other casualties" -- see my extended comment below. The "reactions" section is longer than the description of the actual events, but is far less notable. Not every newspaper's response is a noteworthy addition to this article. I understand this often happens when an article is added to by enthusiasts on an ad hoc basis, but a Good Article will give appropriate weight to this section. Most of this content should be forked into a separate International reactions to the Manila hostage crisis, and what's left should be shortened dramatically to just the basics. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | All points of view are covered. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Not a problem at this time. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | No problems here. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | {{
Multiple image}} ) with a caption such as "Mourning posters in English (left) and Chinese (right) were hung where the incident occurred."
Good images, good captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Currently the article does not qualify for GA status. However, if all concerns are met within a reasonable time frame, the GA nomination will pass. |
The above prose problems are all resolved. I'm just waiting to see what happens with the "reactions" section before I mark 1(a) as passing. – Quadell ( talk) 17:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles should be written in summary style, and long lists should be avoided when not necessary. I know that the victims of the tragedy are certainly important to their families, but they are not otherwise notable, and naming each in a list detracts from the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial.
I examined many Featured and Good articles on similar topics, and these generally avoid long lists of victims in this way. For example, Jena Six, Moors murders, Pendle witches, Toa Payoh ritual murders, Kauhajoki school shooting, 1990 Strangeways Prison riot, etc., each could have included lengthy lists of victims or defendants, but opted for a prose format to match Wikipedia's style. September 11 attacks originally contained a list of victims, but this was moved to Casualties of the September 11 attacks, and even that article merely summarizes information about the casualties, and does not attempt to list them all. (That article was nominated for deletion several times, and was only kept because it is currently a summary, and not a list of otherwise non-notable people.)
Those individuals who are notable in the article have already been mentioned in the prose section. The list should be removed. – Quadell ( talk) 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Efforts have been made to cite an English source for everything. However, bearing in mind that English is an official language but not an everyday language in both Hong Kong and the Philippines, some information of local interest (which Wikipedia should cover) will need to cite Chinese or Tagalog sources.
I don't think separating notes and references is a good idea for this article, as separation is only useful when you want to cite a work multiple times with different page numbers or accompanying footnotes. That isn't the case for this article.
I think the fact that there was worldwide non-stop TV coverage of the incident is important to the article, as the TV coverage played a crucial role in the incident (as explained in later sections). I removed the list of TV stations, but only because I can't find an RS which gives the list. The only source I found was this one, marginal in terms of RS, and from its date of publication and content it is likely to have drawn on this article as a source, so I'd rather not cite it. Der yck C. 16:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Due to the remaining concerns about article focus, I'm opting to not pass article at this time. If those issues are fixed, it should be renominated, and I expect it will pass easily. – Quadell ( talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I have edited the introduction a bit, correcting some grammatical errors and changing the wording a bit to (hopefully) make it sound more encyclopedic. I have also re-ordered some of the sentences, so that the paragraphs follow a "Background-Events-Consequences" sequence. I hope I haven't spoiled any of the excellent work that has been done here so far. Elchori01 ( talk) 15:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. Based on the arguments below, it appears that the crisis title is used in reliable sources and that the incident title is rarer. Insufficient reason to move. -- regentspark ( comment) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Manila hostage crisis → Manila hostage-taking incident – Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I doubt whether there is any source of using the title "Manila hostage crisis". Is the name a original research? I suppose it is more common to be named "Manila hostage-taking incident". -- 202.40.137.198 ( talk) 05:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I still don't get what's wrong with the word. I would never say "Hitler was a bad man", especially not in an encyclopedia, but I wouldn't think twice about calling a hostage crisis a "hostage crisis". That's ordinary, neutral, descriptive language. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
There seemed to be a small edit war. What is the preferred adjective form of Philippines? Is it "Philippine" or "Filipino"? Der yck C. 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The term we call ourselves is "Filipino" as either gender-neutral or male, and "Filipina" for female. --
Arsenal Pro 1975 (
talk) 03:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manila hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 25 external links on Manila hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manila hostage crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Manila hostage crisis was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on August 23, 2010. | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 23, 2013, August 23, 2017, August 23, 2020, and August 23, 2022. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Gatoclass ( talk) 04:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: – Quadell ( talk) 18:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I made proofreading improvements as necessary. What I could not fix myself, I have listed in the
#Manila hostage crisis prose problems section below.
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lede and infobox are quite good, and the "See also" is appropriate,
No problems. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There are areas for improvement. For one, sources in English should be used whenever possible, so that readers of the English Wikipedia can more easily check facts and get more information. (So if an English news source confirms a statement, that source should be used, rather than a source in Tagalog or Chinese.) Also, the article would be improved if there were separate sections for Notes and References, as is done in
Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon) or
Augmentative and alternative communication. However, I don't think either of these should be barriers to passing GA status.
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Inline citations are used correctly. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Except for one possible problem listed in the
#Manila hostage crisis prose problems section below, there is no original research detected.
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All basic questions seem to be answered by the article. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The diversion into precisely which news stations carried live coverage, in the "negotiations" section, is unnecessary and detracts from the flow of the article.
There are problems with the "List of hostages and other casualties" -- see my extended comment below. The "reactions" section is longer than the description of the actual events, but is far less notable. Not every newspaper's response is a noteworthy addition to this article. I understand this often happens when an article is added to by enthusiasts on an ad hoc basis, but a Good Article will give appropriate weight to this section. Most of this content should be forked into a separate International reactions to the Manila hostage crisis, and what's left should be shortened dramatically to just the basics. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | All points of view are covered. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Not a problem at this time. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | No problems here. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | {{
Multiple image}} ) with a caption such as "Mourning posters in English (left) and Chinese (right) were hung where the incident occurred."
Good images, good captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Currently the article does not qualify for GA status. However, if all concerns are met within a reasonable time frame, the GA nomination will pass. |
The above prose problems are all resolved. I'm just waiting to see what happens with the "reactions" section before I mark 1(a) as passing. – Quadell ( talk) 17:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles should be written in summary style, and long lists should be avoided when not necessary. I know that the victims of the tragedy are certainly important to their families, but they are not otherwise notable, and naming each in a list detracts from the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial.
I examined many Featured and Good articles on similar topics, and these generally avoid long lists of victims in this way. For example, Jena Six, Moors murders, Pendle witches, Toa Payoh ritual murders, Kauhajoki school shooting, 1990 Strangeways Prison riot, etc., each could have included lengthy lists of victims or defendants, but opted for a prose format to match Wikipedia's style. September 11 attacks originally contained a list of victims, but this was moved to Casualties of the September 11 attacks, and even that article merely summarizes information about the casualties, and does not attempt to list them all. (That article was nominated for deletion several times, and was only kept because it is currently a summary, and not a list of otherwise non-notable people.)
Those individuals who are notable in the article have already been mentioned in the prose section. The list should be removed. – Quadell ( talk) 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Efforts have been made to cite an English source for everything. However, bearing in mind that English is an official language but not an everyday language in both Hong Kong and the Philippines, some information of local interest (which Wikipedia should cover) will need to cite Chinese or Tagalog sources.
I don't think separating notes and references is a good idea for this article, as separation is only useful when you want to cite a work multiple times with different page numbers or accompanying footnotes. That isn't the case for this article.
I think the fact that there was worldwide non-stop TV coverage of the incident is important to the article, as the TV coverage played a crucial role in the incident (as explained in later sections). I removed the list of TV stations, but only because I can't find an RS which gives the list. The only source I found was this one, marginal in terms of RS, and from its date of publication and content it is likely to have drawn on this article as a source, so I'd rather not cite it. Der yck C. 16:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Due to the remaining concerns about article focus, I'm opting to not pass article at this time. If those issues are fixed, it should be renominated, and I expect it will pass easily. – Quadell ( talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I have edited the introduction a bit, correcting some grammatical errors and changing the wording a bit to (hopefully) make it sound more encyclopedic. I have also re-ordered some of the sentences, so that the paragraphs follow a "Background-Events-Consequences" sequence. I hope I haven't spoiled any of the excellent work that has been done here so far. Elchori01 ( talk) 15:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. Based on the arguments below, it appears that the crisis title is used in reliable sources and that the incident title is rarer. Insufficient reason to move. -- regentspark ( comment) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Manila hostage crisis → Manila hostage-taking incident – Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I doubt whether there is any source of using the title "Manila hostage crisis". Is the name a original research? I suppose it is more common to be named "Manila hostage-taking incident". -- 202.40.137.198 ( talk) 05:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I still don't get what's wrong with the word. I would never say "Hitler was a bad man", especially not in an encyclopedia, but I wouldn't think twice about calling a hostage crisis a "hostage crisis". That's ordinary, neutral, descriptive language. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
There seemed to be a small edit war. What is the preferred adjective form of Philippines? Is it "Philippine" or "Filipino"? Der yck C. 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The term we call ourselves is "Filipino" as either gender-neutral or male, and "Filipina" for female. --
Arsenal Pro 1975 (
talk) 03:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manila hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 25 external links on Manila hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)