Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military history of Puerto Rico/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC).

Military history of Puerto Rico

 * Notified: Marine 69-71, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Puerto Rico, WikiProject Caribbean, diff for talk page notification

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because as stated on talk, the article has multiple issues:

The response to these concerns was to state that there's nothing wrong with the article. Article was last reviewed in 2006; at the time, it was only 7992 words long, so the greater part of the article has never been reviewed at all. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At 17,511 words the article is too long and it needs to be cut almost in half to reach the recommended length, perhaps by using summary style and shifting material to sub-articles.
 * The article cites questionable sources such as http://mayaguezsabeamango.com/images/documentos/capital.pdf.
 * Some sources don't have page numbers, and a consistent citation format is not used.
 * The lead doesn't meet MOS:LEAD.
 * There's considerable unsourced content.
 * Skimming the page, because its too long, I agree that its too long, many sources don't have page numbers, there's a lot of unsourced content and also there's content that just doesn't need to be there like the list of units at Ramey Air Force Base and tables of medals awarded to the 65th Infantry Regiment in WWII and the Korean War. So clear fails on 1c. and 4 of the FAC Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Extended commentary moved to talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is what our well respected editors and Wikipedia Foundation had to say about the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These comments, as noted above, related to a completely different article than the current version and a very different interpretation of the FA criteria back in 2006. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the above comments left at a 2006 FAC aren't at all useful in 2021. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D I've long considered this article problematic, and agree that a FAR is in order. I'd like to offer the following comments:
 * The article is clearly too long, and includes obviously bloated material.
 * Some structural examples of bloat are:
 * The 'Puerto Rican commander in the Philippines' section, which seems to cover only a single Puerto Rican
 * The 'Second Nicaraguan Campaign (1926–33)' section, which has multiple paras on a handful of Puerto Ricans performing routine-looking duties
 * Listing every(?) unit assigned an airfield in World War II (without supporting references as well)
 * The entire 'The USS Cochino incident' section
 * The 'Operation El Dorado Canyon' section (two paras covering one Puerto Rican)
 * The 'Puerto Rican women with the rank of general' section (and why focus only on two generals rather than provide a history of Puerto Rican women in the era since women were integrated into the military?)
 * The 'Congressional Gold Medal' section - this should be a para at most somewhere
 * However, most of the bloat is overly-detailed descriptions of a huge number of topics. Medal citations, one-para bios of large numbers of people (including people who seem barely notable), lists of people who are barely notable, etc, etc. All this stuff needs to be condensed.
 * A lot of material, including entire paras, lacks references.
 * There's an emphasis throughout the article on Puerto Ricans who distinguished themselves, and the general tone leans towards boosterism. For instance, while I presume that Puerto Ricans were subject to systematic racism (and this may still be the case), the topic isn't mentioned - a focus on 'distinguished service' obscures this important point. The fact that people are being highlighted for being promoted or filling prestigious/highly skilled roles for the first time indicates that this is unusual, yet the article never discusses this thematically.
 * I was surprised there was no mention over the dispute concerning the United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico
 * The article's focus is also much too narrow, being limited mainly to the military (and especially wartime) service of Puerto Ricans. Topics such as anti-war movements (which I presume may have had a distinctive edge given the island's colonial history and current status) and military production aren't covered at all. There also isn't much on the military history of the island outside of wartime.
 * The article is too long and, to be frank, too exhausting to read due to the bloat, for me to provide a detailed review of its text. The following comments are based on a light skim:
 * It's not clear to me why the pre-colonisation military history of the island is presented in the context of colonisation. The statement that "The Tainos were known as a peaceful people, however they were also warriors and often fought against the Caribs" is poorly written, and risks repeating a 'noble savage' myth
 * What's the relevance of the para starting with 'According to the "500th Florida Discovery Council Round Table"'?
 * " In November 1917, the first military draft (conscription) lottery in Puerto Rico was held in the island's capital, San Juan. The first draft number was picked by Diana Yaeger, the daughter of the U.S. appointed governor of Puerto Rico Arthur Yager. The number she picked was 1435 and it belonged to San Juan native Eustaquio Correa. Thus, Correa became the first Puerto Rican to be "drafted" into the Armed Forces of the United States." - delete everything after the first sentence.
 * "However, with the defeat of Germany in 1945, the United States concentrated all of their efforts to the war in the Pacific. " - the USN was focused on the Pacific for most of the war
 * The 'Cuban Missile Crisis' section notes only the role played by a single Puerto Rican. Surely the bases on the island were used in this action?
 * "Two Puerto Ricans who served in Vietnam held positions in the Administration of President George W. Bush...." - relevance?
 * "He was ambushed in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, by Somali warlords" - sloppy writing: presumably the 'warlords' didn't personally ambush him. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, I had a go at fixing some of the issues, but probably can't rectify the major concerns listed above. I will try to help a bit more over the next week or so if I get a chance, but would need someone else to do the heavy lifting, sorry. These are my edits so far: Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Prose size = > 17,000 words (8,000 words when last reviewed). I don't support FACs that exceed 10,000.
 * The areas for cutting excess detail are easily found, sample Puerto Ricans in sensitive positions, undue and if people have their own articles anyway ...
 * WP:CITATIONOVERKILL, why all these citations for an uncontroversial fact? On June 10, 2014, President Barack Obama, signed the legislation known as "The Borinqueneers CGM Bill" at an official ceremony. The Bill honors the 65th Infantry Regiment with the Congressional Gold Medal.[3][197][198][199]
 * There is uncited text.
 * Another section that presents obvious opportunities to trim excess detail is Post World War II; any where one looks, it is easy to see that this article can be cut to half the current size. One route might be a notable Puerto Ricans in the military section, cutting everything down to just the basics, since they have their own articles if they are notable.

Comment

I agree with the nominator and other commenters here that this article has major issues and is not up to current FA standards. It is actually really hard to read and its coverage of the topic is very uneven. As an example, I don't understand why, in the Korean War section, there is so much focus on the 65th Regiment, when the preamble to the section mentions 61,000 Puerto Ricans served in the war. Presumably they didn't all serve in the 65th regiment. The heading for the section containing the awards the regiment earned during the war is misplaced. The amount of awards earned in WWII seem trivial and hardly worth mentioning given the scope of the article. I am not hopeful that the remedial work will be completed as the primary editor best placed to do this seems to think nothing is wrong with the article. As an aside, I am also concerned that the primary editor is mentioned in the article in the Vietnam War section and a picture of himself illustrates the section. That seems to be a COI if the primary editor added them. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, I have deleted the Vietnam War COI sentence and images. Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by TJMSmith:  I am a bit confused on the scope of the article. I think it obfuscates the military history of Puerto Rico (the island) and the history of Puerto Rican military people. For example, this article mentions Maritza Sáenz Ryan, Marc H. Sasseville and Hilda Clayton who were all born in the states and did not serve their career in PR. Are they relevant to this article? Additionally, Hector E. Pagan, Irene M. Zoppi, Noel Zamot, María Inés Ortiz have served the majority of their careers off the island on missions not tied to PR. Heather Penney is mentioned but is not Puerto Rican. TJMSmith (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by AustralianRupert: G'day, I have done what I can to add some more citations to areas that were missing them, but I am probably at the limit of what I can do. There are a few issues in the Korean War section that I think need clarification as a couple of points don't quite seem to make sense (I have marked these with clarification tags) -- can anyone assist with rectifying these? I have also tried to reduce image sandwiching and in the process have reorganised the article a little, including merging a couple of sections:. Potentially this merge wasn't the best idea on my part -- I would appreciate others taking a look and if need be, I am happy for it to be reverted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree the Korean War section is a mess. I've been doing too much citation clarification on this and related articles to really dive into it (plus Korea isn't my area of focus), but it feels very boosterish to me. Intothatdarkness 01:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, given that no one seemed to step forward to rectify my clarification tags, I had a go myself. These are my changes: . If anyone with more knowledge feels keen to adjust, please do. I'd be happy to keep trying to help save this one, but I really need some assistance from someone with access to a broader range of sources (potentially someone in PR or the wider US). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I may be able to help, but one thing to be aware of is the need to check almost every cite (when possible) to make sure what's being quoted is actually IN the listed source. I've run into this problem with many of these articles (including individuals linked out of this article...which is where the issue seems especially frequent), and wanted to make sure people were aware. In some cases it's been misquoting, but in others what's attributed isn't even in the source. Intothatdarkness 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC) This may be of help with the Korea section: https://history.army.mil/html/books/korea/65Inf_Korea/65Inf_KW.pdf. Intothatdarkness 17:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Intothatdarkness: I took a whack at some of the stuff in Vietnam and WW2. Having done cleanup in some of the other linked articles I've found misquoting or misparaphrasing sources to be issues worth checking, and corrected some examples in the sections I worked on. Not much, but it's a start. Intothatdarkness 16:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ack, understood - I will try to help out here if possible, but I don't really have the time or knowledge to check all 190 refs and replace if needed, I'm sorry. If possible, I would like to see some of these sorts of refs replaced: . What are the credentials of this site? (There are a few other sources like this used in the article, which potentially also need to be replaced, I'm sorry to say as they probably wouldn't meet the current FAC requirements). I wonder if the information could instead be sourced to the source provided above: ? That would seem to be a better source, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * From the quick comparison I made, I believe almost all the Korea sources could be replaced by the book I linked, AustralianRupert. I can take a stab at some of them, and already corrected a couple. I can prioritize replacing the web page with the book. Intothatdarkness 22:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had a go at one of the paragraphs: . I wasn't really sure what ref style to use, though, sorry as the article uses a mixture. Sorry if I mucked this up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks good...better than it was. As for the items you couldn't find...one thing I have noticed with this and related articles is items being cited that don't actually exist in the cited source. Given the depth of the book, I'd consider it more authoritative than the website, keeping in mind that the website may never have mentioned those locations in the first place (this being a recent example). Intothatdarkness 14:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to FAR some improvements have been done, but the article still needs drastic whacking to meet the length requirement, among other outstanding issues. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On hold It looks like editors are engaged in fixing up the article. The issues might make this a slow process, but improvements are happening. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The issues will make this a slow process. Too many of the sources are either dead links or borderline in terms of RS. In the sections I've worked on (Vietnam and Korea mostly, but also WW 1), I've had to check each cite just to make sure it still exists and has been properly quoted or used. Many of them appear to be non-RS websites or linkedin-type resumes or listings. Slow going. Intothatdarkness 14:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC no significant edits since 12 April. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged, unfortunately I don't have the time anymore to work on this one, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Same here. I can do a little now and then, but that's about it. Intothatdarkness 18:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC - Progress has stalled, doesn't seem likely to pick back up again in full swing per above, and there are significant issues with referencing, focus, and length with the article. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, organization and length. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist would need major, major work to get this up to FA status. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist - Needs a complete overhaul. With work tapering out, it's going to be best for the article for that work to be done outside of FAR. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist - despite best efforts from willing editors, still a long way from FA. Zawed (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist Many thanks to the editors who've been working on this, but the article was so far from FA status it really needs to be be rebuilt. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist (if I'm allowed to weigh in on such things). There are just too many issues with this article (sourcing, content, context). Intothatdarkness 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist article is far too long and has too many sourcing issues with nowhere near the engagement to save it. Link20XX (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.