Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Cebu City Council

Former good article nomineeCebu City Council 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 2, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 2, 2019.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a 1945 ordinance by the Cebu City Council was the first to regulate cockfighting venues in the Philippines?
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Emperork (talk). Self-nominated at 13:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • Emperork, welcome back to DYK! As best I can tell, this is your third submission, the last two having been in late 2006, nearly thirteen years ago. Things have changed a bit since you were last here.
Nominations need to be made within seven days of an article's creation or fivefold expansion. You created the article back on July 3, over seven weeks ago, so it can't count as a new creation. Seven days takes us back to August 17; it was 1793 prose characters immediately prior to the expansion that started that day, so a 5x expansion would require 8965 prose characters; the article is currently 5966 prose characters, or 2999 short of a 5x expansion.
In addition, neither of the hooks you have proposed are sufficiently interesting per the DYK rules, which require a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience.
Since it has been so long since you participated here at DYK, I think we can allow some leniency: prior to some additions on August 14, ten days before the nomination, the article was 1614 prose characters, which would require an expansion to 8070 prose characters only, or an additional 2104 (rather than 2999). I don't know whether that would be feasible, however.
Another change since your last DYK submission is that we now accept newly approved Good Articles, and I see that you've just nominated the article to be one. Should this nomination not succeed, but your GA nomination ultimately does, just nominate the new GA here within seven days; there are no expansion requirements for GAs.
Please let me know if you have any questions, and how you would like to proceed. Thanks again for submitting to DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for the insight. I am currently expanding the article. Can I also change the hooks or maybe add in this nomination? Emperork (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now 9,672 characters. Hope you can recheck. Thanks! Emperork (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also have to note that some paragraphs don't have a reference, such as in the membership section. As a Filipino myself, I don't think any of the hooks would appeal to those unfamiliar with Philippine politics, so a new hook is likely needed. I tried thinking of some but none come to mind right now; I'll comment back if I think of anything. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2, with some tweaking, might be interesting, as cock fighting is illegal in many parts of the world, so it's not something that councils in the UK, US or Australia, for example, would pass ordinances about. RebeccaGreen (talk)
There's probably a better wording to use than "cockfighting venues" (I'd use cockpits, but that language might not be clear to those unfamiliar with cockfighting). I'd also strongly recommend that this go through WP:GOCE/R too as I think the article's wording still needs a lot of work. Any thoughts on these @RebeccaGreen:? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Emperork: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative ALT2 wording seems fine with me. - Emperork (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pinging RebeccaGreen to give this another look. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, Emperork: ALT2a wording seems fine to me. I agree that the meaning of "cockpits" in this context would not be clear to many readers. As this article hasn't been reviewed apart from consideration of its newness and length, it needs a full review, but if a WP:GOCE/R hasn't been requested yet, I guess that should happen first. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Already submitted this to WP:GOCE/R for review. - Emperork (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The GOCER is happening now, so we should be able to move into reviewing this very soon! RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emperork, as the GOCER has been completed, I have started reviewing this article. I notice some information that requires sources. Some sections are well sourced, and some still need sources.

  • In the first para of Membership, I don't see a source for when the elections are held, "on the first Monday of May every third year".
  • In the 2019-2022 membership table, please add citations to the sources which give the councilors names and parties (these exist in the article, but aren't cited here yet). Do you have sources for which number their term is? and for their barangay of registration? I didn't see that information in the sources which name the councilors.

I am still reading the article, so I will let you know if I see other sourcing issues - I think these are the main ones. Regards, RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Working on it now RebeccaGreen. — Emperork (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done citing sources on first and second points except for the barangay of registration. I actually lifted that info from the voters' registration roll. It's actually a document not available in public but are made available by the Commission on Elections upon request or during election period. Any idea how we can cite it as sources? — Emperork (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A source doesn't need to be online. You can cite it as you would a hardcopy book, eg by the name of the source - from [1], it looks like they're called 'Book of Registered Voters', probably specified by the location covered - with the date and the publisher (Republic of the Philippines Commission On Elections, I presume). Enough information that will enable a reader to locate the same source themselves (if they went through the same process you did to request it). RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK will work on this one. Will have to pull up those PDF files I've got and put the citation on it. Thanks so much for the help! — Emperork (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Per BlueMoonset's comment above, the newness and length of the article are based on a five-fold expansion from 1614 prose characters on August 14, ten days before the nomination. The article now has 8563 characters, which is above the required 8070 characters.

I have struck the hooks which have already been considered uninteresting. ALT2 has been replaced by ALT2a, which is sourced and of general interest. Striking ALT3 as the source only says that the mayor, vice-mayor and 12 councilors were suspended, and 2 remaining councilors were appointed acting mayor and acting vice-mayor. It doesn't say anything about 3 other remaining councilors. ALT4 is not interesting to a broad audience, I don't think.
A QPQ is not needed, as the nominator has only one DYK credit.

The article has sufficient sourcing except in the table showing 2019-2022 membership, which still has no sourcing for the 'Barangay of registration' column, nor for the number of terms councilors have served and their start and end dates. Emperork, if this information can't easily be sourced, I suggest deleting it now and replacing it when sourcing is available (it will remain in the article's history, so you would be able to copy and paste it later on). I will be able to complete this review when this issue is resolved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was able to retrieve the voting roll just today but to expedite the process, yes I'll take down that column first for the meantime and put it back on the source is placed. — Emperork (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2a approved. Thanks, Emperork! RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cebu City Council/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MJL (talk · contribs) 01:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Much of this article would have needed to be re-written if it was to meet WP:GA?.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    There are a lot of run-on sentences and things are very wordy. For example, Notable ordinances passed by the council included City Ordinances No. 2339, which prohibited discrimination in the city on the basis of disability, age, health status, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnicity or religion; No. 2343, which phased out single-use plastic products in the city and No. 2326, giving the elderly and people with disabilities free parking in malls, hospitals and other establishments. That whole thing is just one sentence.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    See below
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Two sections are completely unsourced (2004-2007 and 2001-2004). Other sections are cited to a source which does not completely support the statement being made. For example, this source from Scribd (which is unreliable) does not support the statement that those members all stayed in their positions for the next three years. Another one does not even include a list of members.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    There is a lot to want from this article's coverage. I personally want to know why one member of the LDP (Jerry Guardo) is caucusing with the majority bloc. What do the committees do and which are considered to be the most important? Who picks the Vice Mayor? How does the Mayor interact with the council? What kind of place is Cebu City (per Summary style)?
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    See below.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Illustrations

I question the logic of putting a massive panorama in the second section of the article. It's so huge and unwieldy; I mean it takes up more space in its section than the prose does. If you really want to use it there, then I would switch the formatting to this: 

{{Panorama
|image   = File:Cebu City Council Recess.jpg
|height  = 200px
|alt     = A meeting of the Cebu City Council as a panorama
|caption = Councilors of the 14th Cebu City Sangguniang Panlungsod huddle during a five-minute recess of their special session.
}}

Besides that, it's an odd choice to go through all the trouble to with making that picture but not actually include a picture of what the outside of the building looks like (something people searching for Cebu City Hall would've appreciated). You also could've asked the councillors to take a group photo for the page to serve as the lead image, but I guess that's a bit extra.

Finally, I have no clue why you let the Past councils section go unillustrated. We have an image of one of the former presiding officers, so you wouldn't even need to look that hard for a picture.

Layout issues

Sadly, there is only a single City Council article on all of Wikipedia which has made it to at least GA-class. It might make for a good model at the very least.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but the article is rather poorly formatted. My top concern is MOS:PROSE which is why I had to fail this article rather than place it on hold per WP:GAFAIL#0c. I think there is something like 13 different lists in there? It's kind of absurd. The specific solution to this could be as follows:

  • Refocus the "Committee chairs" section by collapsing the table. Then write a detailed overview of the committee system with specific notes at who holds what important chair (don't list it out; pick only the most important ones to talk about). Optionally, you can retitle the section by calling it something like just "Committees".
  • Do practically the same thing for the "Officers" section except expand that a lot more to by making it a level 2 header rather than a level 3.
  • Get rid of all the membership lists. You're going to want to spin that off into its own stand-alone page per WP:SPLITLIST, so no way should the "past councils" section stay in this article. In its place, you should write a second part of the history section to cover all events from with a {{see also}} hatnote leading to the SPLITLIST.
  • Just remove the "Summary by party" set of tables since they add no very little information to the article compared to what can be found in the infobox.
  • You should also add some other sections as well, but I went over that above in the "broad in its coverage" comment.

Note: that is just how I would fix the problem. I'm just leaving you with it to ensure you a good sense for where I am coming from and to give you a possible path forward. Best of luck improving this article in the future, and don't be too intimidated to renominate it after substantial improvements. When in doubt, ask for help.

Kindest Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ap

18 councilors in cebu city 124.106.13.147 (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cebu_City_Council