Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military history of Puerto Rico

Review commentary

 * MilHist and Marine 69-71 already notified. Message left at Puerto Rico Project. Sandy 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the main issues with this article:

- Does not have a single citation despite the fact that it is 61 kb long. Needs more citations.

-The lead is insufficient and too short for a featured article.

-Needs significant copyediting. The prose is less than brilliant to say the least.

-Comprehensiveness could be potentially be an issue. The article does not note any military events prior to the arrival of Europeans. That could be because there were no significant ones, but the article needs to address this issue somehow (that is, Puerto Rico's military history in all the millennia prior to the coming of the Spanish).

I have a left message on the talk page and will also contact the individual who nominated the article for Featured status.UberCryxic 02:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment There are 26 inotes in the article. Footnotes are not the only citation method.
 * Furthermore, the indigenous people of Puerto Rico (Taíno at the time) had no written language, thus their military events are not part of recorded history. It is known that they were at war with the neighbouring Caribs but details are scant. The recorded military history of Puerto Rico begins with the arrival of Europeans in 1493. Joelito (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain what those inotes are? I've never heard of them before and don't know how to look for them. And if I don't know how to look for them, it is likely others will find themselves in the same situation, which is a big problem, even if this article was cited to the ends of the Earth. Right now I can't identify any sort of citations in this article. Either way, even that is still not enough. There are quotes that go uncited.


 * Regardless of the fact that recorded military history in Puerto Rico started with the arrival of Europeans, there have probably been some historical studies done on Puerto Rico about life before the Europeans. These must have described war somehow. If so, they should be included in the article, regardless of the level of detail they contain.UberCryxic 04:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have converted the inotes to cite.php.
 * I will try to dig up any info on war events before 1493 but it will be difficult. The only good Taino reference I have is Rouse which is primarily an archeological book. It goes into some small details of warfare such as the use of bow and arrow, the election of temporary warchiefs, and the use of red paint. I will have to read the book in detail again because I was not looking for military info when I read it the first time.Joelito (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I consider this a "bad faith" nomination. Before the Spaniards arrived there was "no written history" of Puerto Rico. I would like to quote the words of a user on that subject:

"History my friends, is not a past event as many of you out there think; history is the interpretation of that event. That is, an event happens and nobody knows about it, that then is not history; it becomes history when somebody writes about it or speaks about it. It is a big misunderstanding to think of history as an event in the past. History is an academic discipline that one gets to study with its sets of rules and methods for doing it; methodology is called. Now, there is no previous [military history] before Columbus times by the simple reason that nobody has ever written about it, or has documented it in any other mean whatsoever. Of course there had to be some fighting between clans or tribes; somebody knows about them? The answer is no, there is no history to it."

There 26 "inote references" plus 11 references and 6 "External links". The article passed its peer review and was vote a "Featured Article". It has already been identified as one of the "best articles" produced by the Wikipedia community. Military history of Puerto Rico already appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2005. On July 3, 2006 it was selected for the featured article queue of the War Portal and on August 2, 2006 was selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.

The article is constently updated and now someone wants it unfeatured?

I consider this nomination not only an insult to myself but, to all those who spent countless hours working on it making it one of the Pedias best. This is one of the reasons why I longer strife to have another featured article in the pedia and why at times I feel like quiting. The only thing that keeps me going here is that I owe myself to my people.

Tony the Marine 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony, don't you know that in Wikipedia we should assume good faith? Does UberCryxic have any special reason to insult you personally? Does he know you personally? Do you know anything about him? Have you learnt his history in Wikipedia? Do you know, for instance, that he has nominated 4 FAs and that he is one of the best contributors in articles about the military history? You should have learnt these things before assaulting him.

UberCryxic just wants high standards for the FAs. And I want exactly the same thing. You should thank UberCryxic for his detailed review, not assault him. By the way, the challenges for a FA a year ago are not exactly the same with the challenges now. And I also believe that this article, though good, has some serious deficiencies. This is my review: My conclusion is that this article is good, but at this specific moment it does not fulfil at least three of the FA criteria: Therefore, this article definitely needs work. As it is now, it is far away from FA status. I'm sorry!--Yannismarou 08:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very short lead. Tony, the lead should summarize the whole article. Is this a good summary? Do you honestly believe that? Check WP:LEAD and rewrite the lead accordingly.
 * In section "The English" one paragraph has no inline citations. The argument that "Before the Spaniards arrived there was "no written history" of Puerto Rico" is not convincing. There are always secondary sources. Weren't you based on such sources? Otherwise, who told you about these stories? You should mention your sources, even secondaries.
 * The last two parphs of the same section have also no inline citation. Mention your sources.
 * The two firsth parphs in "South America" have no citation. And these events are during the Spanish period. So you should also have primary sources. Primary or secondary sources, I don't care. Just mention them.
 * In "Puerto Rico" 3 parphs have no inline citations. Inacceptable for a FA article. Again mention your sources.
 * The whole section "Cuba" has no inline citations. Again, what are your sources, my friend?
 * "Spanish-American War" begs for inline citations! As a matter of fact, the whole article begs for inline citations!
 * In "Puerto Rican National Guard" I see no inline citations. And now we are in the 20th century! Again no written sources? I don't think so!
 * In "World War I" we have 6 parphs and just one inline citation. Again inacceptable for a FA.
 * In "World War II" I see some very short paragraphs; one of them is an one-sentence paragrpah. Merge them or expand them. Such paragraphs are not recommended for FAs.
 * In "World War II" again the first paragraphs have no inline citations.
 * "Revolt against the United States" has no inline citations. Why?
 * "The Korean War" has no inline citations. Why?
 * "Mass court-martial" is a mess. Insufficient iline citations and bad prose (tooooo many one-sentence paragraphs and incoherent writing).
 * "Cuban Missile Crisis" also has no sources and seems to me a bit stubby. It could be a bit expanded.
 * "Vietnam War" has no inline citations. Why? Again, what are your sources?
 * "Vietnam War" is also too listy. Personally, I donot line the prose.
 * "Somalian Civil War" is stubby. Expand it or merge it.
 * "Afghanistan and Iraq" has no inline citations. Now I'm surprised! So recent events and you mention no sources! Why?
 * "Military installations in Puerto Rico" is for me too listy and should be turned into prose.
 * For many of your inline citations (they are not many!), which are printed sources, you don't mention pages. Just an example: "El Grito de Lares: Puerto Rico's Revolt for independence, 1868 by Olga J. De Wagenheim (1990) Pub. Waterfront Pr. ISBN 0943862515". Where are the pages? You should go through all your references and find the pages. Otherwise, such references are inacceptable under current FA standards. This is a huge problem.
 * "External links" are not mentioned in the right way. You should also mention date of retrieve, and author (if there is one mentioned).
 * The lead does not summarize the whole article.
 * Sufficient inline citations.
 * Brillian prose (because of the many one-sentences sentences and one or two stubby or listy sections).


 * This message is directed towards Uber:Cryxic and User:Yannismarou, You know what? After having slept on the thought I feel that you're both right. I guess times have changed and somethings need improvement.  I guess I was caught up with my passion for writing when I stated the above.  Together with Joel, I will work to update the article to meet current standards.  One question though, how about if it was called "Modern Military history of Puerto Rico"? thereby covering the era of the Spaniards onward?  Tony the Marine 18:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony, you have my sincere apologies if this offended you in any way. I was trying to be as diplomatic, and at the same time effective, as I possibly could. I hope we can focus on what can be done to improve this article. It was not a bad faith nomination: when I first looked at it and delved a bit deeper, I did not feel that it embodied the FA criteria. Yannis did a great job at analyzing and highlighting some of the more specific problems.


 * About the title: perhaps you can name it that, but I just wanted to know if there are scholarly works that somehow describe warfare in Puerto Rico before the arrival of Europeans. These studies don't have to be that detailed; it's just that it would be more appropriate if the article had some word on the issue, however brief (heck, just a few sentences would do, as long as it's addressed).UberCryxic 21:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony and Joelito, after you have some of the basic work done, I'll help with copyedit: I'm not a great copyeditor, but the other Tony is really busy right now, and at least I can give it a start if no one else is available. Sandy 22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to give the article a thorough copyedit after the main issues (citations, comprehensiveness, stubby subsections) have been resolved.UberCryxic 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an article that can definitely be saved. I'm not a good copy-editor and this is the only reason I am not proposing to help with copyediting! But I'll keep a close eye to the article and I'll help as much as I can. I'm sure that thanks to Tony's determination this article will keep its FA status. By the way, I don't know if Robth has the time to help with copyeting. He is one of the best around here in copyediting.--Yannismarou 11:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to, first of all, thank all those who so far have pitched in to bring this article up to current FA standards. I have adde the inline refs. and worked on some of the contents. Sandy and Cryxic do your thing, you have my blessings. Tony the Marine 04:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have given the article a copyedit. Others are welcome to go over it again and correct something I might have missed. Let me just say that there has been massive improvement of this article. On a second reading, however, I am somewhat worried that this article follows very personalized guidelines. That is, much of the military history of Puerto Rico as this article describes it seems to be just about a few individuals who did this and that for the first time. The following is one example of what I mean:

''On November 2, 2003, Specialist Frances M. Vega became the first female Puerto Rican soldier born in the United States to die in a war zone. A ground-to-air missile fired by insurgents in Fallujah hit the Chinook transport helicopter which Vega was in. She was one of 16 soldiers who lost their lives in the crash that followed. On March 1, 2005 Specialist Lizbeth Robles became the first female Puerto Rican soldier born in the island to die in Iraq when her Humvee was involved in an accident''.

Yeah that's sad, but Wikipedia doesn't care. This is an encyclopedia, not an obituary. I don't see how subordinating this article to a few personal tragedies and triumphs makes it encyclopedic. Where individual actions or titles are notable, of course, they should be mentioned (as in a major commander doing this or that), but in this case above, the incident is clearly not notable to overall Puerto Rican military history. There is little discussion about trends and progression among Puerto Rican military institutions (regiments, divisions, National Guard, and so on). The article certainly alludes to some of these complex features, but not strongly enough, at least in my opinion. I think it's fine if these personal stories are kept, but I want to see some more analysis on larger historical trends and questions surrounding Puerto Rican military history.

Additionally, I feel that while it's great that we are getting so many citations, it is slightly regrettable that many are from internet sites. A few more scholarly and published works would definitely help make this article more professional.UberCryxic 18:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem mentioned by UberCryxic can be solved by spinning content about individual soldiers into a separate daughter article, summarized back to the main article using Summary style, with one or two paragraphs. I suspect that doing this will also eliminate many of the less scholarly sources from the main article.  I know it's hard to part with content that might interest some readers, but it will improve the encyclopedic tone, and the content could be saved in a separate article.  Sandy 02:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the daughter articles. I have been pondering this myself. Furthermore I am in the process of gathering more scholarly sources to replace the websites. Also I am continuing to trim away the fat from some sections. Joelito (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that all of the main concerns have been properly addressed. The citations even though they may not seem scholarly, are none the less from verifiable sources as required by Wikipedia policy.  Puerto Rico's Military history becomes intertwined with American Military history after the Korean War, therefore there was a  need to mention some individual contributions and personal achivements of some Puerto Ricans which American history books have neglected to acknowledge.  Improvements will always be more than welcomed Tony the Marine 05:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree Tony but this still needs work.


 * References must be properly formatted (I have begun this task).
 * We must try to replace the web site refs. For example, do we need a web site ref for Sir Francis Drake's life?
 * Content should be moved to daughter articles and the content summarized in this article.
 * More copyediting is needed. Joelito (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Joelito: let me know if I can help. Sandy 21:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Update? Approaching the two-week review period, how is it going? Sandy 14:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My time has been limited this week. I will try to work on it today. Joelito (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have finished the ref formatting. I have hidden some of the refs as broken and commented on some as unuseful. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c), LEAD (2), prose (1a), and comprehensiveness (1b).

Comment: Looks like some work has been done here. Moving it down to keep it on pace. Marskell 09:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments. First, I'm most unhappy about the use of the linked term "War against Terrorism", which appears in the first sentence. The article in question has a template posted at the top stating that the balance is disputed. I agree with that sentiment. Let me know if you need me to explain this view further. In addition, that article begins by stating that it's a term used in the United States (thus, it's centric in national/cultural terms). Second, although the article is now fairly well written, there are still a glitches, such as:
 * "46 cannons were sent to the island ... to rebuild the city". (I've stripped it to its bare bones; this is an embedded meaning here.)
 * "the latter 18th century"—were there two of them? ("late 18th century"?); "try his luck as pirate" might be OK, but seems a little informal to me—does this come from reference 7?
 * "In 1811, Miguel Enríquez participated in the expeditionary force, under the command of Juan Roselló, which fought and defeated the British in the island of Vieques."—Doesn't the first comma make it harder to read?
 * "and dispatched Captain Balduino Enrico (Boudewijn Hendricksz) with the task of capturing Puerto Rico."—Just "Hendrickz) to capture"?

Needs sifting and weeding. Tony 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed War against Terrorism to "in the military campaigns at Afghanistan and Iraq." Please verify the grammar. I have some problems between at, of, in. Joelito (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I like it now!--Yannismarou 18:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Tony the Marine 05:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Much improved.UberCryxic 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's still a "War on Terrorism" down the bottom of the text. Tony 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I rephrased, pointing out that the "U.S." and its "allies" refer to it as War on Terrorism. I hope that takes care of it. Tony the Marine 05:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, fine job. Sandy (Talk) 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)