Talk:Chocolate Hills

GA nomination on Hold

I believe this article will pass for GA, but there are a few things that need to be fixed first. All inline citations should directly follow the punctuation, there should be no space in between. This should be really easy to fix. There are a few statements that need inline citations as well:

*The Chocolate Hills is a the most famous tourist attraction of Bohol. - The source says "probably the most famous tourist attraction", look for a better source or remove it for now.

*Another statement says: {{cquote|The grassy hills were once coral reefs that erupted from the sea in a massive geologic shift. Wind and water put on the finishing touches over hundreds of thousands of years."}} - Add an inline citation for this one.

*Add a source for the first legend about the formation of the hills.

*In 2003, a public outcry forced a construction firm to stop quarrying at the Chocolate Hills, and was required to restore one defaced hill to its original shape. -Add source These statements need cleanup: *The molehill-shaped almost the same sized hills are an awesome sight. - Doesn't make sense, and try to avoid "complimenting" the hills. If this is part of a quote, include it in quotations.

*However, the natural vegetation on the Chocolate Hills is now highly threatened by quarrying activities. - Just fix the redirect for quarrying to quarry.

*During the dry season, the precipitation is inadequate such that the grass-covered hills dry up and turn chocolate brown. This transforms the area into seemingly endless rows of chocolate "kisses"., hence the name in reference to a branded confection. - There is some grammar errors right after kisses, and if this is going to be its own section it needs more information. If it can't be expanded include it within another section.

*For the last paragraph in the "Origin" section, only one wikilink is needed for karst topography, remove the second one.

*There are a total of 214 steps leading to the observation or view deck where one can view the sea of more than a thousand Chocolate Hills as far as the eyes can see. - Remove as far as the eyes can see, perhaps "more than a thousand Chocolate Hills are clearly visible".

*The last source for the tourism is in italics, fix the quotation to use quotation marks.

*The legislation section has several misplaced spaces and extra periods, fix those.

For these things that need to be fixed, I'll put this article on hold for seven days. If they are fixed and I don't see any other problems, I'll pass it then. If these are not fixed by then, I'll fail the article and this article will need to be renominated at a later date. Keep up the good work, and let me know on my talk page if you have any questions and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

With collaboration of the editor of the article, I will keep this on hold for 2 more days from this point, and will pass it or fail it on Friday (for my time zone). --Nehrams2020 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

More fixes:

*"Finally, investment challenges include the fact that speculators bid up property prices in the area, raising the potential cost of a proposed project; getting investors to actually put their money into the poorer parts of Bohol is complicated by communist guerrillas who extort money from local officials, i.e., having refused to pay, Mayor Torrefranca of Sagbayan, Bohol survived two assassination attempts since 1998, when the rebels firebombed his car." This statement is overally complicated and long. Split it up into two.

*"The National Committee on Geological Sciences declared the Chocolate Hills of Bohol a National Geological Monument on June 18, 1988 in recognition of its special characteristics, scientific importance, uniqueness, and high scenic value." This was crossed off but still needs a source.

*Put all inline citations directly after the punctuation with no spaces in between. Ex: "There are fifteen libraries in the city."[1] not "There are fifteen libraries in the city[1]." or "There are fifteen libraries in the city." [1]

*"As such, they are covered under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as the lead implementing agency for its protection." Still has a citation needed tag, either add a source or remove it from the article.

*Reincorporate the name section into another as it is only two sentences long, perhaps the origin section. - incorporated in the subsection on Description - towards the end...

These must be fixed by midnight my time (I'm UTC-8) or I'll fail it. If you can't fix it by then, don't worry about it, you can easily renominate it again when the information is fixed. --Nehrams2020 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Online resources?

Can it be renamed to a more convention title? Like "Further reading", for example? --Howard the Duck 03:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done as per your suggestion. Apparently, this is what happened. Thanks for the suggestion above. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 16:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if what I suggested was correct either since the way I understood "Further readings" is about books and other offline materials. Maybe placing it on "External links" will be better, I think. --Howard the Duck 08:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay...more like it no? Salamat uli ha? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 09:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm not sure if that's correct. Lets wait if someone from the GA peeps say something. --Howard the Duck 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

According to the GA criteria, I will now pass the article. It still could use more information, so keep expanding with new sources. There are plenty of pictures which is really good for the article. Make sure the article keeps its same excellence to remain a good article. Good job, and if you have any questions please ask me on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories

It seems redundant to list this article in both these cats: Category:National monuments and memorials & Category:National Geological Monuments in the Philippines. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Chocolate Hills

The section on the origins of the of the Chocolate Hills desperately needs to be cleaned up. In it, there exists a fair amount of misinformation and fiction gathered from a variety of web pages that lack credibility and reliability. For example, the first paragraph, as of today, of the "Origins" section reads:

There are a number of hypotheses regarding the formation of the hills. These include simple limestone weathering, sub-oceanic volcanism, the uplift of the seafloor and a more recent theory which maintains that as an ancient active volcano self-destructed, it spewed huge blocks of stone which were then covered with limestone and later thrust forth from the ocean bed.

Looking through the published scientific literature, I have yet to find any indication of the "number of hypotheses regarding the formation of the hills" and evidence of any debate by "geologists": "about the formation of the hills" as stated in the article as currently written. There is neither a "debate" nor "number of hypotheses regarding the formation of the hills." Both geologists and geomorphologists seem to be quiet happy in regarding the Chocolate Hills as being a spectacular example karst topography created by the subaerial weathering of marine limestones. The ideas about them being "formed centuries ago by tidal movement"; being formed by some sort of "sub-oceanic volcanism"; being blocks of volcanic stone covered by limestone; being "coral reefs that erupted from the sea in a massive geologic shift"; and others are all imaginative concoctions of web pages and newspaper articles that fail the Wikipedia standards for either verifiability, reliability, or both. This section about the origin of the Chocolate Hills needs to to edited as to remove various unsubstantiated, largely implausible, and often unverifiable claims made about their origins in web pages and newspaper articles of highly questionable reliability.Paul H. (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Chocolate Hills/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• There are two broken links.[1]

• I find the first paragraph of Issues difficult to follow:

Balancing their protection, resource utilization and tourism are the challenges faced by the Chocolate Hills. Before they were designated national geological monuments, some of the hills were classified as alienable and disposable or private lands such that they were titled to some locals. The declaration consequently caused some social unrest, resulting in almost simultaneous civil uprising, led by the long-established New People's Army (generally described as Maoist guerrillas) establishing a new "front", known as the Chocolate Hills Command. To some farmers, the proclamation is a government scheme which suppresses their right to own lands. As such, conflicts between the "command" and government military forces escalated, culminating in two major engagements.

• What does "alienable" mean? Does the second sentence simply mean that some of the land now designated a national monument was held in private hands? Were those landowners compensated? Why is "command" between quotation marks? Is it not the Chocolate Hill Command previously referred to? Is it not really a command? What does "front" mean in this context, and why is it between quotation marks?

• In both the Description and Tourism development sections text is squeezed between right- and left-aligned images.

• "Following his refusal to pay, Mayor Torrefranca of Sagbayan, Bohol has survived two assassination attempts since 1998, when the rebels firebombed his car." Not sure what this is trying to say, as it's ambiguous. Was his car firebombed in 1998, since when he has survived two further assassination attempts (i.e. three in total), or have there been two assassination attempts since 1998, in each of which his car was firebombed (i.e. two in total)?

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• • The congress site is accessible within the site, that is you must search the house bill using congress.gov.ph's search engine rather than google. NEDA link appears to be dead.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Move tourism image clutter to a gallery section.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • changed front and command to military link and to NPA group respectively as qouatations seems to be bad form.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • added wikt alienable, plus cites. NPA torch is cited with new source--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Ive never heard of this task force until now. Is this the GA version of "I'm gonna nominate your article for deletion if you don't clean this up"? If it is, I'm not happy with the harassment.---Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What harassment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you could explain how is this not harrasment (making people do double GA reviews when you could improve the article in less than an hour yourself) then this is not harrassment. By the way, are the improvements ok.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think assuming good faith is apt here. "Harassment" is such a strong word. --seav (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe I think I might be a little too near the civility edge here Seav but I'm really pissed off. I don't know why this editor prefer to create this "re-assessment" when the changes that I made simply took me less than an hour. Heck, I don't even have the slightest idea that the NPA has a base there on Bohol.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You're way over the civility edge. I spent considerable time yesterday in fixing up this article so that it would meet the GA criteria, which it did not. In fact I now have the second highest edit count on this article.[2] To add a charge of laziness to your earlier charge of harassment is really beyond the pale. I will look at this article again and make my decision as to its GA listing when I can do so with a little more equanimity than I am feeling right now. I think that it is particularly inappropriate when administrators such as yourself stoop to deliberately provocative and offensive language. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to ask that another GA reviewer takes over this review, or failing that take it to WP:GAR, as I do not want to be subjected to a further outburst from Lenticel if I have to delist this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Malleus asked for an opinion of another review, I am going to give this article a thorough reading tomorrow. However I already see a few problems: (a) The lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD, because it does summarize the article. For instance, there is nothing in the lead about origin and legends. (b) The third paragraph in Legend subsection and the second paragraph in Issues are unreferenced.

However I think that the article can be saved, and I hope that the authors of this article will assume good faith and start collaborating with reviewers. Periodic reviews of Good articles is a normal process, which is absolutely necessary for maintaining the GA standards. Ruslik (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Second Review

Well, I have read the article and I think that the quality of prose is insufficient. The article clearly fails criterion 1(a). The main problem is numerous repetitions in the text. For instance, in the "Tourism development" section paragraph three partially repeates the paragraphs two, and par 6 overlaps with par 5. The article can be shortened by as much as 20% without any detriment to the content.

The last section ("Protection") currently has two subsection, which in my opinion should be merged. The present "Issues" subsection contains almost no dates and it is unclear how events described in it relate to the legislation mentioned in previous subsection. The Issues subsection is also not clearly written, in my opinion. For example, does New People's Army is same organisation as communist guerrillas mentioed in the last paragraph? It also says that the mining permit continue to be granted, but this contradicts the previous subsection, which says that "the governor of Bohol, issued Administrative Order No. 3, series of 2006, which prohibits the issuance of quarry permits"?

The last serious problem is the "Origin" subsection. It containes some redundency and looks fragmentary. It is unclear how various hypothesis described in this subsection relate to each other, what hypothesis is now considered the most plausible? I think more reliable scientific sources should be used, for instance, papers in academic journals.

As I mentioned above the lead does not satisfies WP:LEAD and there are two unreferenced paragraphs. If all this issues can be fixed in several days the article will be kept in the GA list. Ruslik (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As nothing has been done, I will delist the article. Ruslik (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Adrianna or Eng?

In the Legends section of the article, in the fourth legend regarding the creation of the hills, it is written that the giant Miguel falls in love with a woman named Adrianna, but she is later referred to as Eng. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.78.48 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Chocolate Hills" - Does the name originate from Toblerone chocolate-triangles?

The German article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippinen tells that these Chocolate Hills are a reminiscent of Toblerone, a Swiss chocolate - from 1908 to now (2012) forming a row of 60°-triangels. Does the name "Chocolate Hills" only com from the brown colour of the hills during dry season. Or does it - possibly - arise from the colour AND the shape of the triangel pieces of the worldwide well-known Toblerone? Compare http://turboprinzessinontour.wordpress.com/tag/chocolate-hills/ (German). The crown angel of Toblerone is 60°, that of the Chocolate Hills quite uniform but rather 100°, a rounded tip have both --Helium4 (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC).

Shallow, rambling and out-of-date

Subject heading more or less encapsulates my view of this article. Same question could/should be asked of any and every wikipage - does it tell me more than I already know?

Use of present tense for out-of-date material is annoying, especially as no dates are actually given. Short of good (not-dead) references too, and wanders off in several irrelevant directions. If this ever qualified for GA status, question is how? Second question is, what does it take to fail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.77.148 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chocolate Hills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070331100306/http://www.bohol.ws:80/bohol_philippines.htm to http://www.bohol.ws/bohol_philippines.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207073740/http://www.boholchronicle.com:80/jun06/11/front3.htm to http://www.boholchronicle.com/jun06/11/front3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080905131142/http://www.boholchronicle.com/2007/feb/18/major1.htm to http://www.boholchronicle.com/2007/feb/18/major1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chocolate Hills. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208033227/http://www.globaleye.org.uk/secondary_autumn2001/eyeon/land.html to http://www.globaleye.org.uk/secondary_autumn2001/eyeon/land.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408042959/http://www.bohol.gov.ph/pseal.html to http://www.bohol.gov.ph/pseal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117074917/http://www.dotpcvc.gov.ph/Destinations/bohol.htm to http://www.dotpcvc.gov.ph/Destinations/bohol.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060328083131/http://www.congress.gov.ph/bis/print_history.php?save=1&journal=&switch=0&bill_no=HB01147 to http://www.congress.gov.ph/bis/print_history.php?save=1&journal=&switch=0&bill_no=HB01147
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927201745/http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl101622.htm to http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl101622.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060328083131/http://www.congress.gov.ph/bis/print_history.php?save=1&journal=&switch=0&bill_no=HB01147 to http://www.congress.gov.ph/bis/print_history.php?save=1&journal=&switch=0&bill_no=HB01147

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)