Talk:Military history of Puerto Rico

Issues with the article
(t · c)  buidhe  06:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TOO LONG: at 17,511 words (!!) it needs to be cut almost in half to reach the recommended length.
 * Cites questionable sources such as http://mayaguezsabeamango.com/images/documentos/capital.pdf . Other sources don't have page numbers or consistent citation format.
 * Lead doesn't meet MOS:LEAD.
 * There's considerable unsourced content.

Good News

Military history of Puerto Rico is a featured article has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the "Wikipedia community".

In 2016, The Wikimedia Foundation revealed the most detailed featured articles in its site. According to the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent company, the article "The Military history of Puerto Rico" created by Santiago, is ranked #4 among the featured articles in depth and high quality. Santiago is credited by the foundation as being the person who mostly has maintained the articles' length and quality.

This is what other well established editors had to say:


 * After mav polished the article, I went over it, looking for details. I could only find nitpicky details to fix.  This one has been polished to a high shine.  SWAdair
 * Good article. – ugen64
 * Excellent job. Fascinating reading, and I didn't know a lot of this stuff.  Antandrus
 * A wealth of information about a subject which I was previously largely uninformed about. I have two minor caveats, though. One - nitpickingly - is a technically incorrect sentence - under "War on terrorism" it states Among these were the first two Puerto Rican women to die in a combat zone. I would prefer that to read ...the first two female members of the Puerto Rican military to die..., as I suspect Puerto Rican women were among the casualties during the 1790s when much of the island could have been considered a combat zone. The other problem is a little more difficult, and is addressed by Piotrus, above. The lead-in section is quite perfunctory and reads "telegraphically". I'm not asking you to waffle, but a slightly more leisurely approach might be better. Even without a change to this, though, there is still enough there for me to give this the thumbs up. Grutness
 * This is a fascinating article which reads really well. Ideally I would like the lead section to be a little longer, maybe another paragraph or two, but I do not see this as a reason to oppose this otherwise fine article. Rje
 * Good stuff from Tony and co.  Andre 
 * Good work overall, Tony. This article seems comprehensive, detailed and informative. MusiCitizen
 * Good job. –Hajor
 * Well done! Can't find anything wrong with it. Linuxbeak
 * Excellent job on a rather obscure subject, but that is very interesting. I as a Puerto Rican didn't know many of the facts that the article gives. Good job! <>
 * This article is comprehensive, well-presented, significant, and a very interesting read. Acegikmo1
 * Great, great article with copious information. I see nothing to fix. --Lst27
 * Comprehensive and informative. utcursch


 * Oh well, I guess their opinions also count. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Specifically, those are all comments from over a decade ago? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment If a split's being considered, most of the Korean War information already exists in the 65th Infantry Regiment article. That one would need some verification, but a link in place of the here would save some space. I would recommend the content here be moved into the 65th's article, as this content has been recently updated and verified against a new RS. Intothatdarkness 18:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Support - agree with intothatdarkness. Remove a lot of the Korean War stuff from here because it’s already in the main article. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)