Politics of the Philippines has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 22, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Politics of the Philippines was copied or moved into Political history of the Philippines with this edit on 13:03, 7 June 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
A fact from Politics of the Philippines appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 January 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is very poorly written from a ligustic standpoint and not up to Wikipedia standards. Aditionally, it is very horribly biased and favors heavily the personal opinion of the author.
Eek, I agree. I can't even touch it with a ten foot pole. I'll try to rephrase, delete POV stuff, wikify, correct gramamr tommorow. Too tired.-- Chicbicyclist 11:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This article on the philipines is very biased and based purely on the authors point of view. CHANGE IT!
Biased i2 about the liberal party. remove the bias. aside from that, i feel this ok. i will remove it now.
Yes, this article is reeking of biasphobia. I edited some of it but I am limited of my knowledge of the Philippine Government. Someone needs to grab a book and see to this article's revision. JonSnow 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
biased pala ito..tsk tsk..be fair..imj doinf my assignments eh..ty!````me..
In addition, maybe we should add a section regarding the presence of corruption and electoral fraud? Maybe a historical perspective describing methods and techniques, and countermeasures.
203.87.175.41 11:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I can edit the page, but I am neophyte in wiki, so I won't be able to wikify it. Yeye 09:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest that there should be a longer and more detailed portion of this article which refers more to the Local Government since it has practically the largest number of political offices and political positions in the Philippine government. God bless Charlie alpha ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The government section of the "Outline of the Philippines" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.
When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.
Please check that this country's outline is not in error.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .
Thank you.
It deserves its own article. Nuff said. Moray An Par ( talk) 08:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd probably give this a go. Here's a sample outline, and most must be brief (powers, manner of election, appointment, brief history):
BTW, I tried looking for a WP:FA/ WP:GA-class "Government of Foo" article and it appears Wikipedia doesn't have one. That could've been a good model. – HTD ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is now 72kB long, which is well above the 40-60kB recommended size. Most of that is the current History section, which is almost 40kB by itself. Given that is long enough to be a standalone (and I think it would be a reasonable quality one), I think it would make sense to split off most of that into its own article, leaving behind a summary. The question then is how much should be included in this summary. My preference would be keeping it quite small, perhaps with only pre-independence and post-independence subsections, or no subsections at all, and sticking to information that directly relates to topics covered elsewhere in the article. A smaller History section would leave more space for expansion on the current political structure and situation, which is probably where this article's focus should be. (There's also a bit of history scattered in other sections, which could be kept or excized depending on what works best for those sections.) Such a split would also allow the spun-off history article to get a bit more detailed, although it's already reasonably comprehensive. Any thoughts? CMD ( talk) 10:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: GhostRiver ( talk · contribs) 17:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I think this article has been waiting at GAN for long enough! —
Ghost
River
17:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
elected via the plurality-at-large voting with the country as one at-large "district".a little awkward, I think the "the" after "via" might be extraneous
arranged in along acut either "in" or "along"
Traditionally the most senior associate justice became the Chief Justice, however President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo broke with this tradition. This led to her successor, President Benigno Aquino III, taking his oath of office before an associate justice rather than the Chief Justice. Subsequently, Aquino bypassed seniority in other judicial appointments.Requires a little more explanation
seen by someis there a particular faction more in support of a unicameral system than others?
It has also been arguedsee above
which are six yearsConfusing syntax, subject could be interpreted as "president, vice president, and senators" rather than for terms
Despite independence,unclear clause – can be inferred from context clues that it's Philippine independence, but sentence setup could also suggest US
backed opposition coalition building,confusing syntax
to alter introduced a code?
Thank you for bearing with me! Putting this on hold now; as always, feel free to ping me with questions or comments, and let me know when you're finished! — Ghost River 21:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Notes:
CMD ( talk) 07:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
03:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Chipmunkdavis ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC).
Some alts:
CMD ( talk) 15:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It's possible to be more specific about the implementation of the party list system. Current text says it "was not implemented until 1998." It would be more accurate to say that it was implemented in 1995 with the passing of the Party-List System Act (Republic Act 7941). The year 1998 is relevant because that was the year that party list elections were first held. I don't yet have a secondary source for this, otherwise I'd make the edit myself. -- Aingotno ( talk) 09:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Politics of the Philippines has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 22, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Politics of the Philippines was copied or moved into Political history of the Philippines with this edit on 13:03, 7 June 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
A fact from Politics of the Philippines appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 January 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is very poorly written from a ligustic standpoint and not up to Wikipedia standards. Aditionally, it is very horribly biased and favors heavily the personal opinion of the author.
Eek, I agree. I can't even touch it with a ten foot pole. I'll try to rephrase, delete POV stuff, wikify, correct gramamr tommorow. Too tired.-- Chicbicyclist 11:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This article on the philipines is very biased and based purely on the authors point of view. CHANGE IT!
Biased i2 about the liberal party. remove the bias. aside from that, i feel this ok. i will remove it now.
Yes, this article is reeking of biasphobia. I edited some of it but I am limited of my knowledge of the Philippine Government. Someone needs to grab a book and see to this article's revision. JonSnow 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
biased pala ito..tsk tsk..be fair..imj doinf my assignments eh..ty!````me..
In addition, maybe we should add a section regarding the presence of corruption and electoral fraud? Maybe a historical perspective describing methods and techniques, and countermeasures.
203.87.175.41 11:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I can edit the page, but I am neophyte in wiki, so I won't be able to wikify it. Yeye 09:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest that there should be a longer and more detailed portion of this article which refers more to the Local Government since it has practically the largest number of political offices and political positions in the Philippine government. God bless Charlie alpha ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The government section of the "Outline of the Philippines" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.
When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.
Please check that this country's outline is not in error.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .
Thank you.
It deserves its own article. Nuff said. Moray An Par ( talk) 08:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd probably give this a go. Here's a sample outline, and most must be brief (powers, manner of election, appointment, brief history):
BTW, I tried looking for a WP:FA/ WP:GA-class "Government of Foo" article and it appears Wikipedia doesn't have one. That could've been a good model. – HTD ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is now 72kB long, which is well above the 40-60kB recommended size. Most of that is the current History section, which is almost 40kB by itself. Given that is long enough to be a standalone (and I think it would be a reasonable quality one), I think it would make sense to split off most of that into its own article, leaving behind a summary. The question then is how much should be included in this summary. My preference would be keeping it quite small, perhaps with only pre-independence and post-independence subsections, or no subsections at all, and sticking to information that directly relates to topics covered elsewhere in the article. A smaller History section would leave more space for expansion on the current political structure and situation, which is probably where this article's focus should be. (There's also a bit of history scattered in other sections, which could be kept or excized depending on what works best for those sections.) Such a split would also allow the spun-off history article to get a bit more detailed, although it's already reasonably comprehensive. Any thoughts? CMD ( talk) 10:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: GhostRiver ( talk · contribs) 17:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I think this article has been waiting at GAN for long enough! —
Ghost
River
17:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
elected via the plurality-at-large voting with the country as one at-large "district".a little awkward, I think the "the" after "via" might be extraneous
arranged in along acut either "in" or "along"
Traditionally the most senior associate justice became the Chief Justice, however President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo broke with this tradition. This led to her successor, President Benigno Aquino III, taking his oath of office before an associate justice rather than the Chief Justice. Subsequently, Aquino bypassed seniority in other judicial appointments.Requires a little more explanation
seen by someis there a particular faction more in support of a unicameral system than others?
It has also been arguedsee above
which are six yearsConfusing syntax, subject could be interpreted as "president, vice president, and senators" rather than for terms
Despite independence,unclear clause – can be inferred from context clues that it's Philippine independence, but sentence setup could also suggest US
backed opposition coalition building,confusing syntax
to alter introduced a code?
Thank you for bearing with me! Putting this on hold now; as always, feel free to ping me with questions or comments, and let me know when you're finished! — Ghost River 21:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Notes:
CMD ( talk) 07:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
03:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Chipmunkdavis ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC).
Some alts:
CMD ( talk) 15:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It's possible to be more specific about the implementation of the party list system. Current text says it "was not implemented until 1998." It would be more accurate to say that it was implemented in 1995 with the passing of the Party-List System Act (Republic Act 7941). The year 1998 is relevant because that was the year that party list elections were first held. I don't yet have a secondary source for this, otherwise I'd make the edit myself. -- Aingotno ( talk) 09:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)