Jump to content

Talk:Iximche/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found two, fixed one and unlinked Atitlán as there was no suitable link.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The city was built at an altitude of 2,100 m (7,000 feet) in an easily defensible position on a ridge surrounded by deep ravines, in order to defend the city from their hostile K'iche' and Tz'utujil neighbours "city" is a singular word, "their" is a plural article.
Changed. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Today the ruins are accessed via the modern town of Tecpán Guatemala, which replaced Iximche when it was destroyed. Stray sentence, does not accord with WP:MOS
Moved to Site description section. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Kaqchikel kingdom itself was divided among ten principal lineages, or "big houses", all arranged among four clans. Clumsy phrasing.
Rephrased. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The sons of K'iq'ab became jealous of the growing power of the Kaqchikel lords and lead a revolt against ..., should be led.
Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This revolt had serious consequences for the K'iche' as their conquered domains seized the opportunity to break free of their subjugation to the K'iche'. I understand that you are trying to make it clear who we are talking about, but the repetitious use of "K'iche'" in the same sentence is clumsy.
Rephrased. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. K'iq'ab prevented his nobles from taking war to the Kaqchikel for the remainder of his life, ... "taking war to" is a rather odd phrase.
Yes it is odd, I've reworded it... Simon Burchell (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. On the day 13 Iq' of the Kaqchikel calendar ... and on the day 10 Tz'i' I am not sure what useful information these bring to the article, unless we have some sort of modern equivalent. Probably best to stick to the year alone.
13 Iq': As the article says, the exact year is unknown and best estimates fall within a 15 year range. I think in the absence of a fixed date, it's best to leave the Kaqchikel date in place. 10 Tz'i': Since our year is given, I've moved the Kaqchikel date to the footnotes. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OK
    when they captured the K'iche' kings Tepepul and Itzayul together with their most important deity Tohil. I presume that you mean a statue or picture of Tohil?
An idol of the god, I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The captured K'iche' kings were sacrificed together with a number of K'iche' nobles and high-ranking soldiers, including the son and grandson of the K'iche' king. Again, "K'iche'" used three times in one sentence.
Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ... A terrible plague ... Who said it was "terrible"?
Schele and Mathews describe it as "devestating" (and are cited). Going back to the Kaqchikel Chronicles themselves, the entry from 1519-1521 has "the number of deaths at this time was truly terrible..." and "It was truly terrible the number of deaths among the people". I've dropped in another cite. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OK, but it would be best expressed as something like "A plague, described as terrible in the Kaqchikel Chronicles, struck the city in 1519 and lasted two years"
Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Aztec emperor Moctezuma II sent messengers to the Kaqchikel in 1510, in 1512 he sent another messenger (named as Witz'itz'il) warning of the arrival of the Spanish in Yucatán and Veracruz. What message did the first messengers bring?
Polo Sifontes says that although the exact message is unknown, it related to the presence of strangers in the Caribbean. However, a quick scan of the Kaqchikel Annals for the relevant period mentions the arrival of the Aztec messengers but not the details of the message. Polo Sifontes does mention another primary source so his information may have come from that. Anyway, I'll put it in. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. On the eve of the Spanish Conquest, the Kaqchikel kingdom based at Iximche was still expanding into areas formerly controlled by the K'iche' and were rapidly becoming the most powerful new kingdom in the Guatemalan Highlands "The "kingdom" is singular, "were" is plural.
Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Several stray sentences in Modern history.
I assume you're referring to the paragraph on visitor numbers. It doesn't seem to quite fit anywhere else so I created a new section break - however I'm not particularly happy with that either, since it looks a little strange. What do you think? Simon Burchell (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That is better, I have made slight adjustments to the preceding section.
    Historian Janos de Szecsy began excavations at Iximche in January 1956. Iximche was excavated by Swiss-Guatemalan archaeologist George (Jorge) Guillemín from 1959-1972. Try varying the words, use words such as "city" or "settlement" instead of "Iximche".
Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ... were funded by Swiss National Foundation for Scientific Research "the" needs to be inserted.
Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The subsection Other structures is rather too much like a list.
Not quite sure what to do about this, and I don't want to loose this information. I could put in bullet points so it is a list... Simon Burchell (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It seems better now that the plan has been added. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you read the whole article out aloud to yourself to spot places where the prose can be improved. Then attempt a thorough line by line copy-edit to make it more readable. You can ask for help at the WP:Guild of copyeditors.
    The lead does not fully summarise the article. It also has some information which is not in the article, see WP:LEAD. The lead is improved but it should be no longer than four paragraphs, as per that guideline. The museum should be mentioined in the tourism section. There is no need for citations in the lead as there are ample in the article itself. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Done[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The names of authors, etc. in the references should not be capitalised.
    Where you are citing the same page(s) of a book, you need to combine the citations, e.g. refs #9 and #10. The result of not doing so can be seen in many sections where in fact the cite could simply have been placed at the end of the paragraph, making the whole thing easier to read. Also you should note reference three different works in the same citation, e.g. ref #14.
The problem with combining citations to give one for the whole paragraph is that if someone comes along and puts more (unref'd) info into the middle of the paragraph, it gives the impression of being cited and misrepresents the source. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for multiple refs in the same cite, I'm not aware of WP:MOS dictating against this, and it reduces clutter, hence improving readability. Both of my FAs include multiple refs in single cites and both went through OK. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I won't insist on this as it is not an MoS dictate as you say. I do think that where the same page is cited then you should use the style adopted at ref #212, perhaps I did not make myself clear as this is what I meant. As it is we have over 300 cites, which could easily be converted to 50 or so actual citations. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. References check out, assume good faith for off-line sources.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Site description We need some more dimensions, eg, the area of the site, the area of each plaza, etc. The lettering of the plaza and the numbering of the structure means nothing without a plan.
None of my sources gives dimensions for the buildings, although areas are already included in the article where available. I've knocked up a quick map of the site core based on Guillemin's map, with all structures labelled that are labelled in his map. The map includes a scale, that gives an idea of structure sizes etc. I'm afraid that's the best I can do. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The plan is great, it all makes much more sense now. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All OK
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I have provided examples of poor prose above. I think the whole needs to be copy-edited. I have noted problems with the citation style. The description of the site needs further details of the area covered, also a plan of some sort, without which the numbered list of buildings is meaningless. On hold for seven days for these issue to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a little more work on the lead, down to four paragraphs, the museum to be mentioned in the tourism section. Where a page is cited more than one time, combined as per ref #99 and ref #212. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've combined and slightly shortened the intro paragraphs, and added visitor facilities to the Tourism section. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OK, thanks for your hard work on this interesting article. Good luck if you decide to take it further. Perhaps a peer review would be in order before nomination at WP:FAC. Passing as GA Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very constructive review. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iximche/GA1&oldid=395441278"