History of Puerto Rico

I have been working in this article for some time and I would like ideas on how to improve it. This article contains more than 500 years of history and I believe that it is a fundamental article on Puerto Rico, hence the desire to improve it. Joelito 04:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Looks like a solid article you've got there. A few concerns though:

• Puerto Rico is not linked in the lead!
• The last few sections are completely messed up. They're not sources, they're references and need to be under such a section, if your externallinks are not foornotes, they need to be in your references. Also, using your references for footnotes is good.
• The Great Seal pic looks oddly out of place. Can't you find something more appropriate for that section?
• Just noticed too: you might want to look whether there are pertinent articles you can link to in a "See also" section.

• I have added a see also section. Joelito 03:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have linked Puerto Rico in the first sentence of the lead.
• Can you further explain the footnotes, references comment so I can correct it?
  • The structure should go "References" with "Primary references" and "Secondary references" (drop the "scholarly") as subheader, then "Notes" and "External links" (Unless the links are actually used as references, in which case you want to list them under youre references headers). None of these lists should be numbered. However, the split between "primary" and "secondary" references is not really necessary inmy opinion unless you have a massive amount of them (e.g., as with Scotland in the High Middle Ages). Circeus 18:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed the references per your recommendation. Joelito 18:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I will try to find something more appropiate. That section is concerned with the military of goverment of the U.S. in the island. If anyone has any suggestions they are more than welcomed.
  • Maybe a more specific seal? Or a specific flag used during the military occuparion? Or you couldjust go without a pic at all. Nobody's going to flog you for that. Circeus 18:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I am currently working on the last sections. They need a little more work. Joelito 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some minor changes. As an extra comment, for the refs, you might want into the ((cite book)) and ((cite web)) (especially the latter). Circeus 19:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into ((cite web)) and have immplemented it into the footnotes. Joelito 21:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's quite good. Not knowing much about the subject the only thing I can say is the lead looks funny with the first paragraph being so short compared to the next. Try expanding it by looking through the article to see if there is anything else not properly summarized in the lead. The lead should be 3 full paragraphs for an article this size, but certainly not longer than three the size of the second one currently. With that, I'd say you have a great FAC. - Taxman ^Talk 20:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the lead paragraphs a bit. There are now 3 paragraphs; one for Pre-Columbian era, one for the Spanish era and one for the U.S. era. Joelito 15:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good. Seems ready for FAC to me. Remove the listing here when you list it at FAC so as not to duplicate effort. - Taxman ^Talk 17:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The "References" section should contain all the sources used to write the article. However, there appears to be some sources listed in the footnotes that are not in the references. Any interesting/relevant books or websites that were not used in making this article should go in a "Further reading" or "External links" section. To reduce the space that repeating source information in the "Footnotes" and "Reference" section creates, consider combining them like this or creating columns like this. --maclean25 08:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have taken your suggestion and have tried my best to implement it. Joelito 17:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good job. Upon reviewing the footnotes, here are some comments:
  • Footnote 2 to " Vieques Island - What lies beneath" is used to reference an archeological discovery to 1900 BC, but I did not see where this is mentioned in the source.
    • I have corrected this information to state 2000 BC. The article states that the discovery was dated to around 4000 years ago which is circa 2000 BC. Joelito 21:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 9 to newadvent.org is used to reference "Pope Julius II established two dioceses in the New World", but the source appears to say there were three dioceses. (I could be mistaken about this - please confirm).
    • Clearly my mistake. It has been corrected. Joelito 21:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 25 to the "Olmsted Amendment" is used to reference a new rule that places "Puerto Rican affairs in the jurisdiction of an executive department" however the reference only mentions the non-consensus over appropriations part of the amendment, but not the executive jurisdiction part.
    • Let me see what I can do about this footnote. I will find a more appropiate reference. Joelito 21:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the references are to sources that do not appear to be very reliable. For future improvements consider replacing those more commercial sites (the ones with adverts on them[1]) to more academic sources [2].
    • Thank you for this suggestion. Joelito 21:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• --maclean25 20:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if the 'Pre-colonial Puerto Rico' section can be expanded.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although little information is available regarding pre-Columbus history I have expanded it a bit with the origin of Taínos and their legacy. Joelito 22:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]