Talk:Puhon

Did you know nomination

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 Royiswariii talk 16:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that TJ Monterde recorded his song "Puhon" under a blanket in his bedroom?

• Source: https://manilastandard.net/?p=327908

• • Reviewed:

Created by Bloomagiliw (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Bloomagiliw (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC).

• Article new enough and long enough. No copyvio detected aside from a flagged direct quotation, doesn't count. Hook is interesting, cited inline (I added an extra one at the exact sentence just to be sure), and verified in the Manila Standard source. QPQ is not required as 2nd nomination. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Bloomagiliw (talk · contribs) 20:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 02:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

There's been a bit of a renaissance lately for Filipino music on the English Wikipedia, and I'd love to chip in with a review here! In full disclosure, this review is part of my GA pledge. Expect preliminary reviews within a day, and a full review by the end of the week :) Leafy46 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much. I'll try to apply your suggestions as soon as I can. Very happy to be a part of the Filipino music renaissance on the English Wikipedia too! We're in this together. Bloomagiliw (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Not to rush you here, but I tend to do my prose review after spotchecks are addressed. Do you have any update on when you might come around to this? Leafy46 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Just really, really busy lately. I'll try to do it by the middle of next week. Bloomagiliw (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for letting me know! I will wait. Leafy46 (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, tried to fix or improve the things that needed to be addressed. Let me know if you have any more suggestions for this GA review. Thanks so much! Bloomagiliw (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! I'll get to a prose review once I make sure the spotcheck issues are all resolved. However, I'm not sure of the reliability of &Asian as a source. I can't find their editorial policy or staff anywhere on the page, which is a prerequisite for reviews (and reliability in general) per WP:A/S. Additionally, the author has not released any other articles with the website, making me wonder if it's possibly user-generated. Leafy46 (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I really doubt that the article is UGC, as the author (Julienne Loreto) has been cited in a number of Wikipedia pages with GA status ("Shirt" by SZA, Visayan pop, and so forth). They appear to be a legit journalist who has been selected to write for several reliable sources like The Line of Best Fit and Positively Filipino.

&Asian also has their editorial team listed here: https://uk.linkedin.com/company/andasian

They've had some big-name cover stars and interviewees like Dolly de Leon and Karen Fukuhara. I'm pretty confident that this is a legit publication and that the article is not UGC. If the site allowed UGC, I would expect more diversity in the bylines. But it's mostly a Maddie Armstrong and Aimee Kwan writing, two people listed on their LinkedIn, indicating that there's a fixed team. Both &Asian and Loreto have Muck Rack pages too. The site is an aggregator, so it only generates pages for actual journalists and journalistic platforms. Loreto is probably just a new recruit.

To be honest, I'd just be so sad to let that article go as a source! It has so much good info for so many songs and artists, not just "Puhon." Could we please pause this for a bit so I can try to contact that publication and resolve this? My fellow Bini editors on here successfully did this with an ABS-CBN News article a while back (contacted them to resolve a sourcing issue). Bloomagiliw (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

In light of this, I think I can let this article off the hook, as Loreto could be classified as a "professional music journalist". Maybe this isn't the best source/author possible, but I fully understand that with some articles like this, you just need to take what you can get. However, I think that it'd be worth investigating this source for whether it's okay for more general use; I'm not sure whether LinkedIn is really the most reliable of sources when it comes to a website's editorial policy. This is just not something I would hold up a review for in order to see through. Leafy46 (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright! I've reached out to this publication, though who knows if they'll be receptive to that suggestion. But yeah, with Philippine music especially, I have to take what I can get.
It's often the same set of journalists actively and consistently writing about Philippine music: Hannah Mallorca, Hans Ethan Carbonilla, Billboard Philippines' Gabriel Saulog and Mayks Go... you get the drill. With non-Tagalog songs like this, it gets even trickier to find comprehensive coverage. Loreto and Kara Angan are about the only journalists who are consistently writing about Cebuano music.
Hopefully, this can all get resolved soon, but glad to know it's okay for this article. Bloomagiliw (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but it's been a few days without edits. Could I have an update on when you may get around to this? Thanks. Leafy46 (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Doing it from today and tomorrow. :) My apologies. I was waiting on the &Asian thing because I did see that they updated their "About" page to mention that they adhere to Independent Press Standards Organisation standards. But I don't think they've put their editorial team there yet, right? I'll also probably work on removing the article from that particular page for now, and then finishing up by tomorrow. Again, apologies for the wait. Bloomagiliw (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm done addressing your GA suggestions so far. I decided not to apply two:

• Moving the streaming stuff and Monterde saying he couldn't fulfill fans' requests to translate the song, as both of those things talk about how the song was received (i.e. reception). Commercial performance and audience reception do typically tend to go there.
• Removing the "Listicles" section. On Philippine song articles with GA and higher status, you can find such sections, like on "Multo," so there's precedent, yeah.

Hope it's all okay now. I understand if you fail it, though. Thanks for the review. Bloomagiliw (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Those seem fine for me. Monterde's response to people wanting the song to be translated is not really "reception" per se (given that the section is usually just a combination of 'Critical reception' and 'Commercial performance'), and I still would highly recommend making the move, but I won't fail the article based on that. Ditto for the Listicles section; something I would still recommend doing away with due to the information being repeated in the prose, but something I won't fail the article because of.

I've re-structured the lead to read a little better in my opinion, in line with my suggestions below; feel free to revert it if you think it's not an improvement. However, I'm not sure if my main comment on the 'Composition' section has been addressed yet: "Given that the title of this section is 'Composition and lyrics', the order of the prose here should reflect that. The section should start with the information about this song's composition (its length, sound, creators, instrumentation, etc.) before going into discussion about this song's lyrics." Once this gets addressed, I'd be happy to pass the article! Leafy46 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, please let me know what you think of the current revision. Thanks! Bloomagiliw (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I have no objections to passing this article under the GA criteria. Thank you for your hard work on this article :) Leafy46 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Quickfail checks

• Article looks pretty solid
• Earwig shows a 21.9% similarity, primarily due to an attributed quote
• No clean-up banners
• Article is stable
• No previous GA review to speak of

Media checks

• File:Puhon single cover (compressed).jpg — ? Looks good, but it just needs alt text (in line with media having captions). I'd also highly recommend swapping out the rationale template with Template:Non-free use rationale album cover, but that's not a requirement
• File:Puhon chorus (compressed).mp3 — N This sample violates WP:SAMPLE in a variety of ways: it is too long (at 28 seconds; for a 4-minute song, the max length is 24 seconds) and is of too good audio quality (at 128kbps instead of the suggested 60). These shouldn't be too hard to fix, however, and I'm not too picky when it comes to including audio samples so long as they abide by the MOS.
• File:Colet Vergara in June 2025.jpg — Y Looks good! Though some extra text would be nice to add a bit of context, something like "Colet Vergara (pictured in 2025) performed a duet version of "Puhon" during the Saili Nating Mundo concert".

Spotchecks

This is a pretty short article, so I'll run through all the sources. All numbers are based on this revision.

• 1 — N Everything except "He and his collaborators worked on the song by sending its files to each other over the Internet" is backed up by the source. Perhaps this is supposed to be source #3 instead?
• 2 — N The line "He related to the word on a personal level..." should be attributed to the source, given that it isn't Monterde himself making this connection as far as I can tell. Everything else is good.
• 3 — ? Seems okay. Could I ask for a rough translation of the quote regarding his recording process? Because I don't think that Google Translate is doing that line any justice, and I can't verify whether he actually did use the USB mic or was simply talking through a hypothetical.
• 4 — Y All good
• 5 — Y All good. *Technically* the song length isn't on this page, but it seems okay as a primary source.
• 6 — Y All good
• 7 — Y All good
• 8 — ? I do need to call into question whether or not the duet between Monterde and Vergara occurred on all three nights, or if it was a one-off occasion. The text in the article suggests that it happened all three nights, while the text in this source (in addition to source #6) seems to lean towards it being a one-off but isn't definitive. The other use is fine.
• 9 — Y All good
• 10 — Y Seems good. The line about preserving heritage seems to be a summarizing line at the bottom of the article, as opposed to being about "Palayo" in specific.
• 11 — Y All good
• 12 — Y All good
• 13 — Y Looks good. A more specific page number would be nice, but not required. I also didn't need a paid subscription to access the source, so I don't know whether the lock is needed on the citation.
• 14 — Y Source checks out

Prose review

All suggestions are based on this revision. Everything here is only a suggestion, and I am happy to discuss any of these points if you feel that they shouldn't be changed :)

Lead

• The fact that this song is a Vispop track is mentioned (and linked!) twice in the lead
• This lead should be re-structured so that it is in chronological order. Start with its background information, then its release info, then its composition/lyrics, and finally its critical reception and subsequent live performances
• Is the opinion of &Asian due weight for inclusion in the lead? It's not exactly on the level of a Rolling Stone or Billboard as far as I'm aware, where it is regarded as an authority on music

Background and release

• I feel that the line about Monterde wanting to record a "Spotify-quality track" should be in the same paragraph as the one detailing how he went about recording the track. Not sure if it's better to bring that sentence down or a portion of the next paragraph up, though
• I found a Billboard Philippines article talking about how the song was released in some compilation album. Is this worth including in the article?

Composition and lyrics

• Given that the title of this section is 'Composition and lyrics', the order of the prose here should reflect that. The section should start with the information about this song's composition (its length, sound, creators, instrumentation, etc.) before going into discussion about this song's lyrics.
• There is a lot about the definition of Puhon here ("The Cebuano word "puhon" roughly translates to "someday", "God-willing", or "in God's time". Monterde explained that he revolved the song around the word "puhon" because he was fascinated by it. He described the word as "very unique". The Philippine Entertainment Portal (PEP) quoted him as saying, "When someone asks you in Bisaya, 'Are you two married?' The answer is, 'Not yet, but 'puhon'[...]. Your outlook automatically becomes positive when you say 'puhon'.""), which I feel should be cut down to a sentence for the sake of conciseness. Maybe something like "The Cebuano word "puhon" roughly translates to "someday" or "God-willing", which Monterde described as "very unique" due to its optimistic connotations." or something of that nature.

• On that note, would it also be worth linking the Wiktionary entry for 'Puhon', the same way you did it with 'Kilig'?

Reception

• The Philippine Star source needs a paraphrase in order to avoid WP:OVERQUOTE, since Donato's words are being used as a substitute for exposition.
• Ditto for the Rappler source. Something like "...with writer Amanda T. Lago praising the song for delivering a "much needed spot of kilig" during the COVID-19 pandemic" should do the trick
• "The newspaper included "Puhon" in their list of songs that help in preserving and promoting the Philippines' rich cultural and linguistic diversity." — This line, especially the "preserving rich cultural and linguistic diversity" part, feels rather gratuitous when the article is only listing out four Filipino songs not in Tagalog. I'd change this sentence to just say that
• Given that a lot of the info regarding the song's lyric video and Spotify streams pertains to Monterde's response to its success (esp. the part about him being unable to translate it into Filipino or English), I feel that it'd be better to move that information into the 'Background and release' section. That way, you'd also be able to reference the lyric video's release inside of that section. Let me know if you think I'm crazy for this, though

Rest of the article

• Is the information about the concert being sold-out relevant?
• "Chino David of Hale (band)" --> "Chino David"
• Is a separate section for the listicles necessary, given that they already appear in the prose of the 'Reception' section? I can understand the awards being included separate due to precedent, but there isn't a similar precedent for listicles.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.