Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military history of Puerto Rico

Military history of Puerto Rico
I'm resubmitting this article after doing additional work. I believe I've covered the main objections on the fisrt nomination. I enjoy history and I wrote the article because I was unable to find one on the topic in the internet. I hope you all enjoy it. Tony the Marine (23:45, May 19, 2005)
 * Comment: former nomination is here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Minor object. Half of my previous objections not adressed: lead is still to short . While references are split from external links, they are still not formatted (i.e. no 'last acessed on...', no ISBN). External link still in mainbody - use some note variant to remove it. I will support after those changes - a good article despite those few minor faults.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm helping out with this article. It looks real good so far and I think I can help bring it to FA standard. Great job Tony! :) --mav 02:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. 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 | Talk  10:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article. – ugen64 16:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support; excellent job. Fascinating reading, and I didn't know a lot of this stuff.  Antandrus  (talk)  02:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support; Antonio Reckless Life Martin 00:01 AM, 22 May 2005 (MST)
 * Support - 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...  wha?  08:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. 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 12:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Good stuff from Tony and co. Andre ( talk ) 15:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work overall, Tony. This article seems comprehensive, detailed and informative. MusiCitizen 16:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Good job. –Hajor 16:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Well done! Can't find anything wrong with it. Linuxbeak | Desk 17:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. 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! <> 22:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Object I don't want to be a pain, but there really should be some kind of in-line referencing system (footnotes, parentheticals, i-note, textual attributions). It's important that we make the article as easily verifiable as possible.  Examples of things that badly need references are statistics (like numbers of people) and details of the various battles.  I hope this is fixed so the article can get the featured status it clearly deserves. Dave (talk) 01:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, stats are the only thing that I think really need referencing for historcial and overview type of articles--nixie 05:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I heartily disagree. I can see lots that need it, and stats might be the last thing. The best guideline I can think of is to prioritize the facts in the article from the standpoint of most important, and most contentious. This article may not have many contentious facts, but what are the top 15-20 most important facts, that if removed, the article would be much weaker? Those need citations to their source. Or pick the 2 most important facts in each section or subsection and cite those. Think critically - what could someone that does not trust this article take issue with, and what source would back up what is here?  So lack of inline citations and the fact that the references section is still not properly formatted leads me to object for now. Article looks good though, so if this is fixed, I'd love to support. - Taxman 14:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added the inline references but I need some help in making soem of them "invisible", please help out, anybody. Tony the Marine NEVER MIND I SOLVED THE PROBLEM.
 * Support Everyking 03:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This article is comprehensive, well-presented, significant, and a very interesting read. Acegikmo1 05:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "Over 28 Puerto Ricans have died in the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq." reads awkwardly, could this be changed to the exact number (as of some date), or at least changed to "over (some round number)". In either case, a reference would be appropriate for this fact. Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 08:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Valid point. I have taken care of it. Tony the Marine
 * Support. Great, great article with copious information. I see nothing to fix. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  20:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Comprehensive and informative. utcursch | talk 10:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)