Talk:Puerto Rico campaign/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Comment-Could you please cite the strength and the casualties of the Spanish and American forces?-Red4tribe (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * General info. is contained within the infobox. Sources do not cite specific numbers, except in some cases such as the Battle of Yauco and these are cited within the article. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by General Info? If you do not know the numbers, please put unknown because it is, well, unknown. If no source cites those numbers, they should not be there.-Red4tribe (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * At first I didn't quite understand what the heck you were talking about, but after re-reading your statement I understand and you are right. The numbers should have been referenced. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There should be no new information (and therefore no need for references) in the lead.Taken care of - Good point. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Short paragraphs (of one or two sentences, or sometimes even three) should be expanded or combined with other sections). Taken care of I took care of one lone instance which I found. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Due to the referencing and image issues, I have not done a complete check of the prose. When I see that the article is progressing on these fronts, I will do a prose and copyedit run-through.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References should be in numerical order, so [13][14], not [14][13] Done
 * Block quotes must have a reference directly after the quote, as well as after the section preceding the quote, if the same source is used. Done
 * If you are going to use a short in-line ref/full ref in separate section format for books (as you have with Pratts), the same format must be used for all of the books, in order to make everything consistent. You can either add the full refs to the end of the references section (as you have with the Pratts book) or you can create a new section just for these. Also, all books need publisher information and should be formatted the same way (see ref #1). Done &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * References not in English should be noted as such (see ref #2). Done, I hope
 * All web references should be formatted the same way (again, see ref #2). Same as above
 * All web references need to have publishers, even the ones not in English. Done
 * What makes ref #20 (The Battle of Guamani) a reliable source? It appears to be user-driven, like WP. Fixed, posted another source.
 * No, not fixed. You simply replaced the formatted version of a unreliable website with an unformatted version of the exact same website. Now fixed
 * Refs such as #36 (Miles, Nelson Appleton) should be formatted as a book, with the url given as a courtesy link. Done, I just checked it and I think that ERcheck took care of it. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes ref #41 (welcome.topuertorico.org) a reliable source? It appears to be self-published. Fixed, posted another source.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * In the "Prelude to the Puerto Rican Campaign" section, the image you have is fair use, with no rationale for why it is allright to use it in this article. This picture is probably not necessary for the reader's understanding of the article - it should probably be removed.  Could it possibly be replaced by a picture of one of the ships mentioned, or a picture of the bombardment or the armistice signing, if available? Taken care of Image is circa 1898 therefore the copyright lic. has been changed. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of images in this article. In several spots, text is sandwiched between images (which is discouraged by MOS), and the general prevalence of images makes the article not flow as well.  If the number of images could be cut down a bit it would be great.  One option would be to make sure there's a link to the Commons category that contains all of these pictures, so that readers know where to go to see them. Comment, I went over to User:TomStar81, a person not-related to the work on the article, to recommend which images I should remove. I expect to hear from him soon. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment #2, Dana, I checked in my computer and the images seem to be in tone with the article. I then asked other users to do the same and they tell me that the texts are not sandwiched between images. I was wondering if there is a possibility that the resolution in your computer is reflecting a non-exsistent image problem. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment #3, I have viewed the article on several different resolutions, and you do indeed get some sandwiching below 1024x768. If you remove the pixel settings from all thumbnails, Wikipedia displays them at the user's set preference (default is 300px I believe), recommend you remove the forced image size attributes (this lets users with smaller resolutions set thumbnail sizes smaller). If you were to remove some images, I'd recommend you stick to one per subsection (level 3 header) and three or four per section (level 2 header); also, the awards images in the "Aftermath" section break up the article.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   05:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I assumed that was the problem earlier. However, there are a few large images there (450+ px) which may display too big if we remove the image size fields. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what you mean. If you use the code, it will produce a thumbnail at the size the user set, default of 300px. The size of the image itself has no bearing on how large the thumbnail will be.  bahamut0013  ♠  ♣   11:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Large images in low resolutions look pixelated. I know it because I needed to play with my desktop's resolution for a while so the images would display correctly when it was bought. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment4, User:Bahamut0013, I'll tell you the truth, I'll make a total mess with the images. I was wondering if you could "please" help us with your suggestion of "pixel settings from all thumbnails", to see if we could come up with a solution. After that is done I will remove the non-essential images. I will really appreciate it. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed some images. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've done that. I left the portraits at 120px... I think they look better that way. Plus, most military men look ugly up close, and these guys are no exception. Anyway, most of the sandwiching is gone, and what little is left ought to be fine for most people at most resolutions.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   11:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What you've done with the images looks really good. I've moved a couple more around (just within the section, and not removing anything).  Feel free to revert if you don't like what I've done.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * What you've done with the images looks really good. I've moved a couple more around (just within the section, and not removing anything).  Feel free to revert if you don't like what I've done.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

There are quite a few issues with referencing and images (as well as a few MOS things) in this article. I am going to put the article on hold, in order to allow the editors time to work through these concerns. As I state above, I have not done a prose check; when I see things progressing with the references and images, I will complete the review. If you have any questions, you can ask here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's looking like a good start on tweaking the article. Keep working on the issues outlined above, and I'll get through the prose over the next two days. Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning referencing & use of Harvard referencing &mdash; harvnb is used in conjuction with citation to have a linking by author/year. The non-book citations use cite web, cite news, etc. as appropriate. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Prose
Here are the issues I've found with the prose and minor MOS issues. I'm listing them down here so they don't get lost in the stuff above :) I've also done a copyedit of the article, correcting grammar, spelling and other minor stuff.  If you don't like anything I've done, feel free to change it!


 * Overall:
 * The names of ships should have the first part (USS or SS) in regular letters. The second part (the name, i.e. Yale, etc) should be italicized. Done Tony the Marine (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Land Campaign in Puerto Rico (July 25th - August 13th) section:
 * Landing in Guanica subsection: second paragraph, you say "A convoy of ships left Tampa, Florida and on July 21st a convoy departed from Guantanamo for a 4 day journey to Puerto Rico. The convoy included the USS Yale, USS Massachusetts, USS Gloucester and the USS Dixie."  Are these two different convoys?  Do you know when the first convoy left Tampa?  Which convoy are these four ships from? Rephrased, so that it all makes sense. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Landing in Guanica subsection: last paragraph, you say "Agustín Barrenechea, Vicente Ferrer, Juan María Morciglio Simón Mejil, Salvador Muñoz, Cornelio Serrano and Pascual Elena". Is it necessary to list these names?  Are they of any special significance?  If they are, then explain why they're significant, if not, just say "all but seven abandoned..."  (I see that you explain a couple of sections later, but there should be at least some reason here in this section.) Fixed, I think. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Invasion subsection: block quote, is there a reason for multiple sets of quotation marks? Fixed -
 * Battle of Yauco subsection: 4th paragraph, you say "Puig and his men retreated towards Yauco, but failed to destroy the rail terminus" Why were the Spanish trying to destroy the rail terminus?  I thought the Americans were the ones trying to get to it? Added I added that the terminal connected Yauco to Ponce. The Spanish wanted to keep the Americans from reaching the islands second largest city by rail. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You probably don't need to go over information twice. In the Invasion subsection you say "On the afternoon of the 25th, Garretson left Guánica with seven companies of the 6th Massachusetts and one company of the 6th Illinois and headed towards Yauco." and then in the Battle for Yauco subsection you say "In the meantime, US Brigadier General George A. Garretson, set out of Guánica with seven companies (companies A, C, E, G, K, L, and M) of the 6th Massachusetts and Company G of the 6th Illinois towards Yauco".  This info can probably just be covered once. Done
 * Battle of Asomante subsection: second paragraph, you had three different spellings of "O'Hern". I standardized them all to this spelling, but if it's supposed to be something different, then please change it. Thank you
 * Aftermath section:
 * The last four paragraphs of this section are fairly short. Any way they can be combined? Combined
 * Second paragraph, you say "Porto Rico Regiment" Is this a deliberate mis-spelling?
 * Its deliberate and it is not a mis-spelling. When Spain ceded Puerto Rico the American government tried changing the name to something they could pronounce. This along the "Americanization" attempt mentioned in the text failed miserably to catch on with the population, being eventually dropped altogether. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  21:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that it was on May 17, 1932 that the U.S. Congress changed the name back to "Puerto Rico". Isn't it ironic that in the U.S. we complain when Super Powers impose themselves on smaller nations, yet we do the same? Just a thought for food (smile). Tony the Marine (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironic is probably the kindest way to phrase it... *grin* Dana boomer (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have completed the prose review of the article. As soon as these few issues are completed, the article will be ready for a pass to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like everything has been completed, so I am passing the article to GA status. Thanks to everyone for the great work and prompt responses. Dana boomer (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)