Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Puerto Ricans Missing in Action in the Korean War

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Puerto Ricans Missing in Action in the Korean War[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 7 support, 1 oppose. Circeus's concerns seem to be more over the notability of the page, rather than how it measures up against FL criteria. Promote. Scorpion0422 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a article authored by Tony the Marine, there were talks in the last few days over wich course to follow with it, taking it to GAC was an option but since 2/3 of the article are a list of casualities the decision was to nominate it here and bring it before the community's consideration. As with the Featured Article Candidates I have participed in the past I can guarantee that either me or any other member of WikiProject Puerto Rico will gladly attend the sugestions presented here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose I would actually be nominating this for deletion, but I'll at least leave this nomination runs its course Wikipedia is not a memorial. Why would Puerto Rican missing in action be so important that they warrant a list and no other groups of American soldier? Sorry, but I just don't see a way this works within Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Circeus 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Puerto Ricans are a diferent nationality than Americans, while they have American citizenship granted at birth, the Puerto Rican citizenship is individually recognized. I fail to see why this would be a memorial, it just list the fallen and the honors received in said war.- Caribbean~H.Q. 06:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still fail to see how we can justify any such "missing in action" list. I had noticed the particular Hispanic-american war stuff, but this is simply preposterous. Circeus 06:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because its informative, it discusses historic events in a N:POV manner and because its a complete list, regardless of that this follows the presedent set by United States casualties of war. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, As an article it is very informative. As a list, I see no such "memorial" since the "list" is not honoring those that are missing. Antonio Martin 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - I disagree that this is a memorial, but there are problems.

    • The title is quite horrible. Are there other articles named in this fashion? Changed
    • "One the recipients was Ramon Nuñez-Juarez[8], the other was PFC. Ramon Nuñez-Juarez who was listed as MIA and was posthumously awarded the medal." Both are linked to the same article, so this sentence definitely needs work. You are right, Fixed
    • Along those lines, why is there a substantial portion of the article devoted to Ramon Nuñez-Juarez? He has an article, doesn't he? Portion greatly reduced
    • And why is Ramon listed in this article as KIA, when the article is about MIAs? He was listed as MIA and after the required period of time re-listed as KIA Sorry it was my mistake to place "KIA", PFC Ramón Nuñez-Juarez's remains have never been recovered and he is listed as an MIA.
    • Why is the list formatted the way it is? Explain why they are considered "died while missing". Also, no need to have "ARMY" in every single row, and it appears they are all in Army; you can move that out of the list. You are right once again, corrections made
    • The citation given for the list is a dead link. Fixed
    • Reference format for the links. Done
    • No bold title in the lead paragraph, yet the caption of the picture is bold. No bold there please. Fixed
    • Once these most glaring of issues are fixed, I may have more comments to make. But these are really blinding me to the rest of the article. I'm completely shocked that AntonioMartin supported such a deficient list (the lack of proper referencing alone is worth of an oppose) and I suggest the closing admin consider such support votes appropriately. --Golbez 09:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is, indeed, quite horrible; it should at least be changed to Puerto Ricans Missing in Action in the Korean War. Puerto Ricans Missing in Action since the Korean War reads even better, even if it is unrealistically optimistic. Kirill 12:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Oppose(commented further down) - Along the same lines as Golbez. I have no problem with the basic content of the actual list. It fulfils criteria 1(a): contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles; Yet i do think it needs a lot of work to meet the other criteria and the WP:MOS:
    • The title should be changed, Kirill's suggestions are good. Done
    • Although not compulsory, i think this article would be improved through the use of WP:Citation templates. The references need accessdates at the very least. Done
    • Why is the Ramón Núñez-Juarez article copied almost verbatim in this article? That is what we have wikilinks for. You are right, it has been reduced
    • Explanation needed for the Died while missing. This should go in the lead, or directly above the table. Done, plus deleted from table
    • Why is the table formatted in all caps? Is this not shouting? Fixed
    • The dates should be formatted correctly and wikilinked as per WP:MOSNUM#Dates and WP:MOSNUM#Autoformatting and linking.Done
  • That's me for now. Woodym555 13:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more.
    • It needs another check though. Some dates have been missed, spelled incorrectly or are in the wrong column.
    • Should Pvt not have a period after it : Pvt.
    • The dates should be wikilinked as 1 January 1952 according to the links above. It is for user preferences to work correctly. Could we not have the full dates such as September 1? Is there a specific reason for them like they are? The two go together. I think it would look better.
    • Suggestion: Could you not expand the rank acronyms (and wiklink some of them). I think it would improve the list.
    • Suggestion: Could you not left align the names? It would look better to the eye and easier to scan down the list.
    • You could have it as a sortable table. Done
  • Some of these are only sugestions and personal preference. I think some of them would be good for the article though. You have no need to apologise, some people don't respond for days!! Woodym555 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thank you all for your suggestions you are all right, the list was a mess. I have taken action and made the changes requested. I would like to apologize to all of you because I had various doctor appointments and I couldn't make the fixes earlier. The featured list is a new concept to me, I have been so involved with witting articles that I was totally unaware of its existence until this nomination. I think it is a great idea and now I have an idea of requirements of an FL. Tony the Marine 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking a lot better, here's a new list of comments:
    • The title is better, "List of" may be useful but I won't push the issue, that's for others to do. ;)
    • It still says "date of death"; please explain this in the article. Was this the day they were noticed MIA? Was this a certain time after they were noticed MIA? It seems odd to have a solid date of death for MIAs, so this needs explaining.
    • The table should have full-linked dates, rather than contracted month names. All dates linked and all months have their full name
    • Normally I would say "put the names in first-name-first, last-name-second, and make the list sortable" but since only one of these (so far as I know) actually has an article, that may not be necessary. But we can deal with that later. The table is now sortable
    • Also, in the table, don't abbreviate the rank, write it out and link it at least once. Don't assume readers know what a "Cpl." is. Full names added and links provided at the first mention of each rank
    • Why is Cartagena Colon's date blank, and why is Perez Villegas' rank blank? Cartagena's date wasn't available but Perez Villegas's rank was a format error that has been fixed
    • Consistency with accents: In the prose, the marine's name is given as "Ramon Nuñez-Juarez". With an eñe. In the list, it's given as "Nunez-Juarez, Ramon". No eñe. And his article is titled "Ramón Núñez-Juarez", with an eñe, o-acute, and u-acute. I'd like this to be resolved; don't be shy with including all sorts of acutes and accents in the list --Golbez 21:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Fixed all mentions of Ramon to read "Ramón Núñez-Juarez" as it is the way the title of his article is spelled, not sure about the other names since accents aren't really my forte.[reply]

My comments will be on bold blue. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportComment I think the fixes done so far have improved the article dramatically. I have now fixed the table to sort correctly. The rank column now sorts in order of rank and the date column now sorts in order of date. I have added hidden text as to how to edit it but hopefully people won't need to as it should be comprehensive. My only qualm now is with the referencing dates. The accessdate or retrived date should be the last day that it was retrieved and verified. This helps to stop dead links. Could the links be checked and then the accessdate added. Excellent work on acting so quickly. Thanks. Woodym555 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the work with the sortable table, I rarely use that format and certainly needed some help. I checked all of the references, all of the sites are funtioning properly, I also changed the format to use the Template:Cite web and added publisher information. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The text is easy to use once you get the hang of it. It is not always as easy as adding "sortable" at the top!! ;) I sorted the rank by Rank instead of alphabetically because i thought it was more appropriate. After all the changes i think it now fulfils all of the FL criteria. Kudos to both of you for reacting to the comments so prpomptly and reasonably. Good luck with the article. Woodym555 02:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree the article in its original form was not very good, but the title change and the improvements to the article based on the comments above have made the article great. --Boricuæddie 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Support the nomination of this list. All of the concerns mentioned above have been taken care of and it no longer looks like a mess. Tony the Marine 04:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - This article will be a very useful, well-organized, source of information for research on Korea, Puerto Rico, Hispanics in the military, life in the '50's, comparisons with other military conflicts, and so many other subjects. Pr4ever 14:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I just went over the featured list criteria in some detail, and compared them to this list -- it does have a hint of memorial to it, but is also useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well constructed. Murcielago 22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck out my previous votes so I can start from a clean slate. A few comments, but generally, support:
    • You mention how many Puerto Ricans were MIA, and how many casualties there were; I would also like it to mention how many Puerto Ricans total served in the war.Done
    • I have to ask: What is the source of the picture at the top? It has no linked source, it simply says that it's pd-usgov, but no proof of this is given. We kind of need this verified.Done
    • I'd like something under Miguel Cartagena Colon's date, like "unknown".Done
    • Furthermore, my question about how these dates were chosen goes unanswered. Is this the date they were noticed missing? That's what it appears to be (considering so many are from September 1952, which was when the 65th infantry fell) but i'd like it explained.You are right. The date is when they where listed as MIA's
    • All in all, though, it's been vastly improved since I first looked at it, and I think my statements above - while valid - are nitpicks, and I have no doubt they will be swiftly repaired by those working on the article. --Golbez 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, I can't anwser the mayority of these questions but I will work with Cartagena's date now, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, thank you Marine. All nitpicks dealt with. --Golbez 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Puerto_Ricans_Missing_in_Action_in_the_Korean_War&oldid=1143388987"