Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/2007/April

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Mtmelendez in topic Template:PuertoRicoproj

Article assessment criteria

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Before we start assessing articles en-masse we should define the criteria for assessment. Joelito (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the assessment page. I've added a few criteria based on the WP:01 suggestions. I assessed alot of pages today because of the backlog, but I'll wait for your comments first before continuing. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How could Pedro del Valle be rated "Low" in importance? My questions in regard to the Military history of Puerto Rico and Agustin Ramos Calero have yet to be addressed. Look, the low importance ratings stick out like a sore thumb. The majority of the wikiprojects do not address the importance ratings, such as the Military project. If I'm going to work my butt off researching and writing a damn good article to only have this stated in its talk page: "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.", then the hell with it, I don't want any part in this project. Tony the Marine 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Time out

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I want you all to read and enjoy an inspirational article (at least I felt very inspired when I wrote it) I believe that this is a fantastic untold story. Read the story of Sylvia Mendez and enjoy. Tony the Marine 02:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

FAC nomination

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have self-nominated Puerto Ricans in World War II for FA. The article passed FAC peer review and I believe that it is a story that needs to be told. The nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Puerto Ricans in World War II. I will keep my fingers crossed. Tony the Marine 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ramón Emeterio Betances

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Gente, I need your honest reassessment. At the suggestion of Tony the Marine, I've almost given birth to a Betances clone... The article had a B rating before I put my hands on it. I want to improve the article's rating to Featured Article status, and have since submitted it to WikiProject peer review. However, since you're part of the concerned party, so to speak, feel free to fire away(!) Methinks it deserves an A, but I'm biased. Wink, wink... Of course, if this paragraph doesn't belong here, move it and let me know where it belongs. Demf 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Great job! I believe that it would do great in peer review, but you know me, what do I know? (smile). Tony the Marine 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Gracias, but what about Puerto Rico WikiProject ratings? I'd suggest High or Top importance... as quality goes, I've done my research for about an hour or so, and it probably deserves an GA, maybe even an A, but not Featured status yet. My wife is about to strangle me, all I do is talk about the guy since Thursday... ;-) Demf 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not Top-importance, that is reserved for core topics (i.e. History of Puerto Rico); maybe High, due to his historical and internationally renowned impact and influences. But GOOD WORK, by the way. The article is really good. As Tony says, throw it through Peer Review; after that, I think it'll easily pass as a Good Article, except for a few touches here and there. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, the ratings and importance would be...?(bites nails nervously) Demf 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say High importance, this person is a notable historic subject which many students research from. As for quality, just put it as B to be conservative, but pass it through the GAN process. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My explanation

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Ok, they're seems to be concerns about consensus on the subjectiveness of the importance scale. So let's talk about it here. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 00:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I started assessing articles based on the importance guidelines of the WP:1.0. However, these are very ambigous. I also browsed through other WikiProjects and found little additional guidance. So, I assessed articles based on my interpretation of the guidelines. I did also add a few words to the WP:1.0 importance scale suggestions, but these were minor.

I referred to this quotation from the WP:1.0 project:


Basically, I assessed articles based on a "tree of knowledge". For example:

  • Puerto Rico, assessed as Top because it forms the basis of all articles.
  • History of Puerto Rico, assessed as Top because it is a core topic and forms the basis of most articles within the project, including sub-topics and specific historic moments.
These two then "branch off" to...
Military history of Puerto Rico, assessed as High because, although it plays an important part in many articles, it is nevertheless not a core topic, but rather a very important sub-topic of the History of Puerto Rico umbrella.
This article then "branches off" to...
Puerto Ricans in World War II or Puerto Ricans in the Vietnam War, I would assess as Mid because it is a sub-topic of a sub-topic.
This article then "branches off" to...
Carmen Contreras-Bozak, I would assess as Low, because it is a sub-topic of a sub-topic, etc.

Another example of my logic...

  • Puerto Rico, assessed as Top
  • Sports in Puerto Rico, assessed as High not Top, because, although it is a core topic, it does not form the basis of many important articles within the project
These two then "branch off" to...
Baseball in Puerto Rico or Notable Puerto Rican baseball players; I would assess these as Mid, because it is a sub-topic,
These two then "branch off" to...
Hiram Bithorn, I would assess this one as Mid to Low, because it has a rather important significance to the topic, but more so locally than in the United States or internationally, while
Luis Olmo, has a trivial importance, and I would assess as Low.

There are exceptions however, as I would assess Roberto Clemente as High (though not Top). The reason is because of his high notability in Puerto Rico, the United States, and at an international level.

To give you an idea of how reserved the elevated important statuses are, take a look at these satistics:

WikiProject Top High Total Articles
WikiProject Baseball 44 (00.3%) 309 (2.72%) 11,355 (100%)
WikiProject United States 3 (00.7%) 55 (12.01%) 458 (100%)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team
(the entire assessment project) 		5,729 (00.8%) 15,348 (2.10%) 730,190 (100%)

As you can see, these two elevated importance assessments are made for only the unique and core topics of a subject or area. As such, they should be conservatively awarded.

I'm short on time, but I'll respond to any messages left here when I get back tomorrow. Sorry for the confusion, especially to Joelito and Tony. I really hope we can make this assessment project work. Again, sorry for the trouble.


I leave you all with a guideline from the WP:01 page. I think it summarizes the significance of discussing these issues here first. I erred in assessing articles before doing that. For that, I am deeply sorry. I have a belly button, you know. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Look I know that you are well intentioned. The reason that people such as Agustin Ramos Calero and Pedro Del Valle are not notable in Puerto Rico, the United States, and at an international level is due to the injustices of our so called history books which have buried their contributions to society in general.

Many of us have made an effort to correct this injustice by making them and their contributions known internationly through Wikipedia. Take for example: Humbert Roque Versace, nobody, I mean nobody knew that he had Puerto Rican blood. He wasn't even known in Puerto Rico until I wrote about him. Thanks to Wikipedia, I'll be going to PR this Memorial Day on an invitation of the Puerto Rican Seante when his name is unvieled on "El Monumento de la Recordacion".

How do you think it looks when someone, be he Puerto Rican or not looks at the talk pages of these outstanding Boricuas and reads "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."? What do you think people will say when "We" of all people derate the articles of these poeple as unimportant? Just think about this. The terminalogy used makes it seem like that.

These people are "notable" or otherwise thier articles would have been deleted as NN. The only problem is that nobody ever gave them the credit that they deserved until now that we have taken it upon ourselves to write about them.

I suggest this: substitute the word "importance" with the word "priority". Therefore, it will not seem as if we are degrating the importance of the subject of the article "per say". As I have stated, my main concern here is how those that are not familiar with Wikipedias procedures and terminalogy will interpret the words "Low-importance".Tony the Marine 02:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As always, Tony, you've made the best suggestion I've heard from all the assessment feedback. Changing the scale from "importance" to "priority" would better emphasize on the need to improve articles not on their historical importance, but rather as a priority towards the Wikipedia 1.0 release..
Importance seems to imply notability. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Remember, this assessment project is not an absolute evaluation of all articles in Wikipedia.
You know, I somehow feared this negative response would appear as editor who created the articles don't get the assessment they feel they deserve. I rated my own articles VERY CONSERVATIVELY (i.e. the articles I started or contributed significantly; I'm not claiming ownership). I think 99% are rated as Low-importance, even articles such as Banco Popular and Cerro Maravilla Incident. After all, are these two notable economic and historical articles (which I considered as B and GA, respectively) more important than articles on the Economy of Puerto Rico (B class) or the Puerto Rican independence movement (which is basically in Start class)? Would another encyclopedia dedicate more research and effort into the former articles than the latter core and sub-core topics?
Furthermore, if we assess many articles as either Top or High, we'll have a huge workload of articles that will need immediate attention, and we probably won't be able to improve the project's core articles so that they can be included in the WP Release.
So I also propose changing the wording from Importance to Priority. To do that, we'll have to change certain words in the assessment page, in the {{PuertoRicoproj}}, and change the Categories from Importance Puerto Rico articles to Priority Puerto Rico articles. It's really not a hard task, but we'll need administrators such as you and Joelito to delete the old categories, and to review the changes to make sure they work.
Also, I practically created the conventions in the assessment page by myself, so PLEASE REVIEW AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEM!!
I won't assess any more articles, or at least not until more users join the assessment project and a consensus is clearer. Therefore, I suggest Tony and Joelito and other experienced editors should be in charge of assessing articles, or at least, those which are significant to Puerto Rico. I'll just stick to making sure the entire process works. Thanks for the feedback, guys. At least I now know many more users are aware and involved! Cheers. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ok, so i was also upset by the assessment of Olga Nolla, who is an improtant Puerto Rican writer. I always thought of the importance scale as to what it was it's importance within the project...aka, the priority level in which each article should be viewed. So, I kinda agree with Tony on the Priority thing. I just always thought that's what importance meant. In the Wine Project I belong to we have a nomination system. Everyone can label an article as low, mid or high, but to be considered Top, 5 members must vote in support. I also suggest that if you are going to change an article's importance, you should consult the person that assessed it first. I had originally assessed Olga Nolla as mid and it was changed to low. I have changed it again because I strongly feel this is an important article. I also suggest that each active member should have something like an area of expertise. Even though I am not an expert, I could take Literature, Tony, could maybe take History and so on. I also think that the writer of the article should not necessarily be the one to assess it because, as the writer, we feel stronger about that article. Finally, sorry Tony, bout I would still label the Versace article as low. My reason is that because no one in PR knew he was of Puerto Rican descent he did not have an effect on Puerto Rican history. I think we should label articles as mid or High if the person, object or historical event had a direct effect on the history or situation of Puerto Rico. Although, the actions of this man are admirable, within the project of PR the article, in my opinion, should be rated low. In a Project about military, I would think differently. --Charleenmerced Talk 15:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced
    • Another comment - Mtmelendez, I changed your assessment of Banco Popular and Cerro Maravilla. I think, in this case, you were way to conservative in your assessment. Banco Popular is an imp institution, not only in banking, but also in fomenting the arts (is fomenting a word in English? fomentar....). As to Cerro Maravilla - well, this was a very very imp event in Puerto Rico. People born decades after it happened know what is known to have happened, specualtions and the effects of this. I think this is an important historical event that truly shaped Puerto Rican perception of politics, police, government, etc. Thus, I labeled it High. --Charleenmerced Talk 15:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced
  • Comment I am sorry that I must step in and chastise some people. Tony you and Charleen also but to a lesser extent overreacted and let your ego/emotions get in the way of rational thinking. Articles about individual people with low worldwide recognition should be rated as low in the importance scale. We are not here to assess as what we think the importance of the article or person should be. We are here to assess as to what the importance of an article is. Our own feelings should not get in the way of providing the correct information on this encyclopedia.

I wrote an article (Elfin-woods Warbler) into which I put a lot of effort. It is rated as low by all Wikiprojects that have assessed it and they made the right assessment because the article is about a rather insignificant (in broad terms) species. We must step back and look at the big picture and maintain objectivity. Joelito (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Olga Nolla has worldwide recognition and her writings are in many literary anthologies. --Charleenmerced Talk 16:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced
Let's look at the big picture. I personaly do not mind to the "Low" assessment, that I can understand. What I'm sugguesting is a change in "terminalogy". Change the term from "Importance" to "Priority". The term "priority" will lead us all to assume that the articles assessment is in regard to it's place within the project. However, the term "importance" will be misunderstood, as it already has, as an assessment to the article per say. This is especially more so when it appears on an article which deals with a persons biography. A change of terms would be fine, what's the big deal? It isn't our job to determine who is and who isn't important in regard to worldwide recognition, the reader of the article should come to his/her own conclussion without any of our interference. Tony the Marine 17:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes!! Consensus is working!! The project is on its way!!

*cough* Ok, now that I've gotten a hold of myself, let me expand my views. I know they are long, but please read them:

First Charleen: I still Since we have different views of on the assessment of Cerro Maravilla, I propose to change it as Mid. The reason is that the Puerto Rican independence movement is a much more general topic and needs a heck of alot of work. I think that article should be assessed as High, and other important independence events be rated as Mid, while not so notable be rated as Low. Important people in the independence movement (like Pedro Albizu Campos) should be High, while others that participated in an important event, though not notable for influencing the movement outside of such event, should be rated Low. (i.e. Cerro Maravilla Incident rated as High or Mid, Alejandro Gonzalez Malavé rated as Low) Agreed?
Second, I partially agree with your re-assessment of Banco Popular, but not because of its notability on the island, but rather its increasing expansion into the United States, more so than any other Puerto Rican bank. Therefore, let's leave Banco Popular as Mid, but the rest of the banks as Low, because they are not nearly as notable as BPPR outside of Puerto Rico. Agreed?
Third, I can see you're a fan of Olga Nolla, but I still don't think it deserves a High classification. I mean, as a biographical article, her notability does not extend that far much from Puerto Rico and latin-american women's literary studies. Other Puerto Ricans have a much profound notability on English speaking cultures and countries.

Also, before continuing discussion in individual articles, I propose the following statements to be added to the convention section of assessments:

  • Any editor can assess or re-assess an article. However, if a re-assessment is disputed, editors are encouraged to discuss the reasons for the dispute in the article's talk page or on this project's talk page. Please do not revert a good faith re-assessment without consulting with the editor or the community. Edit warring, or rather "assessment warring" will not be tolerated within the project .

I think this is an important notice to all participating users, since some might not take the time to read through any consensus we achieve here. If we agree to include it, please feel free to do so. I might not be logged on when this is agreed.

I strongly agree with Joelito on this. I think his assessments have been the most accurate, even re-assessing some of my own assessments. Our judgements on importance must be dispassionate and unbiased; we must not take into account what we would like other people to read, but rather what other people will probably be looking for.

I also agree with Tony, in that the wording should be changed from Importance to Priority. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 18:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Response - I agree with BPPR and Cerro Maravilla (sorta with the last one, I still kinda think it should be High but meeting you half way works). As to Olga Nolla, I never said her article should be High, but Mid. I think her article should be Mid. Finally, I agree with Priority language.--Charleenmerced Talk 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced
  • This is good! I agree with Mtmelendez on all counts. Tony the Marine 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like consensus has been reached on the Priority vs. Importance issue, though I'd still wait for Joelito's opinion.

As for assessing individual articles, it looks like we're getting somewhere. I wouldn't have a problem classifying notable biographies as Mid, but not all. I think my Roberto Clemente vs. Hiram Bithorn vs. Luis Olmo point sums up my arguments when it comes to biographies. I'll agree with you Charleen, Olga Nolla can stay as Mid, but also take into account other important artists, such as Rene Marques or Julia de Burgos, which are more notable and more deserving of the High status (but this is just my opinion of course.)

Also, I take it you all agree with the new convention point above, so I'll include it. Feel free to edit it to sound more welcoming or add additional info later. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree Rene Marques and Julia de Burgos should be High. --Charleenmerced Talk 21:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced
  • Another comment - My big fear for this Assessment thing is that people who deserve a better rating in Puerto Rico but probably will get it elsewhere won't get a fair deal. Case in point: Eugenio María de Hostos. The guy virtually founds the Dominican public school system, he establishes a lyceum in Chile that still stands, is regarded as a Citizen of the Americas by about a dozen LatAm countries, gets a space at the National Pantheon in the Dominican Republic (only foreigner to get it)... and yet, outside Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, he's like: Eugenio-who? Same with Betances, who has a far better reputation in France, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, the Tri-State area of NY-CT-NJ and Haiti than he has in Puerto Rico. Ouch. Are my fears unfounded? Demf 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - Well, I guess we can all kinda agree that those involved in this PR Project know at least a little bit of history and at a minimum, know the name and some of the importance of these two people.--Charleenmerced Talk 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced
We hope. Those of us who are here know better, but I've seen bozos in Wikipedia make a mess of articles with little reason behind them. Not anyone who has contributed in this talk page, of course. Simply my paranoid self raising the flag... ;-) Demf 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Response # 2 - Demf, I know how you feel, but your worries are bound to happen. Its part of the assessment process. We never said it was going to be perfect, we just want to make it as good as possible. This assessment project clearly states that assessments can change. Case in point, if a user assesses Maria de Hostos as Low and you feel that it is incorrect, be bold and re-assess it. If the dispute continues, bring the discussion onto this page which Charleen, Tony, Joelito, and I will probably be watching (and after this discussion, so will you I hope!), and you can obtain an honest, good faith second opinion.

Also, a consensus is being reached here that Puerto Ricans who are very notable at an international level should get an elevated priority status, even if people in this country ignore them. The only thing users should do is provide information or sources that the person or subject is very notable in other countries, especially english-speaking ones.

However, I'm going to be bold myself and add a new convention to the assessment project about documenting the reasons for a users assessment either in the edit summary or in the talk page. This way, assessments can be clearer. Feel free to edit the convention once I post it, just in case you want to soften or harden the language. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support "a consensus is being reached here that Puerto Ricans who are very notable at an international level should get an elevated priority status, even if people in this country ignore them." by MTmelendez.--Charleenmerced Talk 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Idea

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
  • I believe that anon's should not be permitted to assess articles, only registered users. An assessment committee should be set up or something. What do you all think? For example, the top assessments, such as GA, A and FA must go through peer review and be assessed by the committees already in exsistence. That should be made clear in our bylaws.Tony the Marine 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong support. This is a serious project, and anyone who wishes to contribute should be a registered user. However, lets not discourage newbies or even users outside the Puerto Rico WikiProject. So, I propose that an unregistered (anon) or newly registered user's assessments should be automatically reviewed by one of the project's users or by the Assessment Committee (if its created). If the community agrees with the assessment, then the reviewer should advise the anon or newbie about the project and cordially ask them to register and join the project. Also, the reviewer should consider making a dummy edit to the article's talk page and write a description in the edit summary like "Assessment reviewed: Agree, Concur, Disagree, Rejected, etc." , so that others within the project who watch the articles know about your review and re-assessment. What do you think? - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: I think this discussion is more appropriate in the talk page. Should we move it? - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit, anyone can assess. Are we to become the watchmen? If so Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Joelito (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Demf 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My argument was not based on converting the active participants of this assessment project into "owners" of the project. This project is open to anyone at anytime. I don't feel anons and newbies should not assess them, I just think their assessments should be monitored or reviewed against the project's guidelines by experienced editors. Like I said, if the reviewer or community agrees with the assessment, then the reviewer should leave the assessment “as is”, and advise the anon or newbie about the project and cordially invite them to register and join the project. That way, the project grows with each new assessment. It's not creating a watchmen's club, it's expanding a WikiProject. An assessment committee doesn't have to be created, however I do feel the project needs some sort of organization, otherwise we might have articles such as Calle 13 (band) being assessed as Top importance all the time. Maybe instead of creating a formal committee, we should just create a list of users willing to re-assess, similar to a list of volunteer peer reviewers and copy-editors.

The project's guidelines clearly state that anyone can assess and re-assess. If your concerns are that a power-drunk editor will overstep a user's right to WP:BB, WP:IGNORE, and WP:UCS, then your concerns have a very valid basis, but I think the project addresses that. Again, anyone can assess and anyone can re-assess. Period.

Oh, and to answer the latin question: We are all watchmen. Consequently, the watchmen watch the watchmen, and everyone has the power. That's what the watchlist is for. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:PuertoRicoproj

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

By changing from importance to priority in {{PuertoRicoproj}} you just unassessed every article's importance. Joelito (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* I know. This is a work in progress. I'm just trying to abide to the consensus reached weeks ago. The problem is in the template's code. I can't seem to figure it out. The harm isn't that big: if you revert my edits to the template, the assessment will jump back to importance, and since that is included in the article talk pages, it will automatically restore itself.

But I can't seem to change it to priority. I was hoping that the importance= and priority= commands would both categorize the article on the Priority scale, but it doesn't categorize them at all. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I do not approve the change since I still think it is an ego/sensitivity issue and it breaks the PR Wikiproject from the conventions followed in the 1.0 Assessment used by all Wikipedia but I will try to help you with the code. Maybe it will have to wait until tomorrow though. Joelito (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I don't have a problem with it either, but other users were pretty adamant about it as you can remember. I really don't care what its called as long as it inspires editors to get involved. I really appreciate your help, you know a lot more about this than I do. I'm going to revert my edits back to Importance-assessment so that the project keeps running smoothly. I'll take another look at the code, but I'll wait for your response before making changes. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Puerto_Rico/Archives/2007/April&oldid=1144662280"