Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Puerto Ricans in World War II

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Puerto Ricans in World War II

edit

This is a Self-Nom. To my surprise, I discovered that history books have omitted the contributions made by Puerto Ricans during World War II. I wanted to correct this injustice by writing an artcle on the subject because I believe that this is a story that needs to be told. With the help of other editors we have what has resulted in "Puerto Ricans in World War II". The article has passed GA and the FAC peer review. Tony the Marine 19:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very nice, but can we get rid of the "See also" section somehow? The links shouldn't be too difficult to work into the text, I think. Kirill Lokshin 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! You are right. There really isn't a need for a "See also" section because all of these links were already worked in to the article. Tony the Marine 20:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- The quality of the article has been improved since I approved it for Good Article and the tag in the image that I pointed at has been fixed. -凶 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I didn't take a whole look at the article, but I made some tweaks to the lead. I also added some inline queries. Please enlist two or three copy-editors to help brush up any lingering deficiencies. — Deckiller 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the "tweaks", I've had some people look into any lingering deficiencies. Tony the Marine 06:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I too have seen a couple of areas where a copy edit would be needed, however these are minor issues which will be sorted out very shortly I am sure. The content is well researched and covers many aspects of the topic. Notes and references are all well done (though the first one of the "further reading" section has the year at the beginning and the rest do not? this ought to be standardised). Perhaps tinkering with organisation, moving "women in WWII" up to it follows on from the main section, rather than having discrimination in between then, and perhaps making a couple of the images larger, but on the whole a great article that will certainly have its few bugs ironed out quickly. SGGH 13:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • and of course looking at Deckiller's inline points :) SGGH 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved the "PR women in the military" and "Commanders" section closer to the main section. It does look much better now. Tony the Marine
        • Perhaps rename "women in the military" something more related to World War II specifically? "Puerto Rican women in the military" or something similar? It ties it in with the rest of the article more. You might want to lend a hand with the History of women in the military article too! :) SGGH 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - shouldn't it be titled 'Military history of Puerto Rico during World War II'? -Phoenix 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I believe the title of the article is appropriate for the subject. The article is about Puerto Rican men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces, and not about Puerto Rico engaged in WWII as a country. (See for example Military history of Canada during the Second World War, an article about an independent country fighting in the war, and not about its citizens fighting within the U.S. armed forces). - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. Funny, because that's the article to which I was going to refer you for an example of what I feel is a good title for these sort of article. I see the difference now. -Phoenix 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't have much experience in rating FA articles, but after reading it twice I find that its comprehensive, compelling and above all fully attributed. Important statements have inline citations and sections have appropriate images. I would only suggest having a dedicated copyeditor review the article for minor details. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 21:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Tha article is extremely well written, speel checked and, is aestetically very good!talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 23:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In order to make sure that the article would have a just grammer and spelling check, I asked User: Chris the speller to do me the honors. His response: I looked over Puerto Ricans in World War II, and there wasn't much to fix. Nice job! Chris the speller 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC). Taken care of Tony the Marine 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article! Antonio Martin 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good Stuff, you are right "this is a story that needs to be told" ! Max 06:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support -- Latino contributions in WWII are often overlooked; this article being a FA would bring attention to that fact. Not to mention it's a great article and would be a fine FA. Murcielago 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1a. The prose throughout needs cleaning up, preferably by a copy-editor who's new to the article. Yes, it's a story that should be told—I agree entirely with the previous reviewers on that count; but I find "there wasn't much to fix" to be wrong-headed. It's particularly important that the stories of minority groups, particularly of non-native speakers in a sea of anglophones, be expressed in the very best English. Their history needs to gain the authority and respect that comes from linguistic precision. It's kind of unfair, but we can't escape that fact. Search edit-history pages of related articles for good copy-editors. Start with the FAs.
    • We're told twice in the lead that PRs "participated in combat in the European theater".-Done'
    • "For the first time, Puerto Rican women were permitted to join the military"—when? Better start "In WW II, Puerto Rican women were first permitted to join the military". But this statement begs questions such as whether this was in parallel with the participation of other US women in the military; or were PR women admitted at a different time. Unclear.-Done
    • "It may have also been the first time that some of the island's men would play active roles"—This is a WPian disease called "woulditis"; just "men played".-Done
    • "the total amount of Hispanics"—Nope, "number".-Done
    • "Armed Forces"—why caps if generic? Only use caps for official titles.-Done
    • "the military of the United States"—By this stage, we know which military you're talking about; remove the last four words.-Done Tony 23:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, You made some valid points! I have looked into the situation and rephrased. Tony the Marine 01:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Puerto_Ricans_in_World_War_II&oldid=851270865"