Jump to content

Talk:Spanish conquest of Petén

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSpanish conquest of Petén is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starSpanish conquest of Petén is part of the Spanish conquest of the Maya series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2016.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 6, 2013Good article nomineeListed
November 3, 2013WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
November 22, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
April 16, 2015Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 3, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1697 the culmination of the Spanish conquest of Petén resulted in the defeat of the last independent native kingdom in the Americas?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Spanish conquest of Petén/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Just a few spots needing clarification
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    a few spots needing a bit of work
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

General comments:

  • Lead:
    • I think we might be a bit skimpy on the lead here ... it feels a bit short compared to the length of the article. One suggestion is to add a few dates to the lead - there is only the one single date in the lead that anchors the information chronologically. When did the conquest start? When did the last bits end?
I've added a para to the lead with a historical overview. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who were the peoples that were conquered? Mayan peoples or something else?
The second para of the lead mentions that the inhabitants were Maya, but it was probably not clear that all the groups were Maya, I've added "Maya" so "number of different polities engaged in a complex web..." now reads "number of different Maya polities engaged in a complex web..." Simon Burchell (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography:
    • Is there a main article we can link to at the top?
I've linked to Geography of Guatemala, but to be honest there's more information here than there... Simon Burchell (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background:
    • You say that Columbus discovered for the Kingdom of Castile and Leon - but then later use "Spanish Crown" - suggest you define what you mean by Spanish Crown for the historical numbskulls out there.
    • Also - do we have a "main" article you can link to for folks to get more details on this section?
    • suggest instead of "who answered to the king of Spain via the Council of the Indies" that you say "who answered to the Spanish Crown via the Council of the Indies" since that is the formulation you used earlier.
  • Strategies:
    • What do Dominican missionaries have to do with conquest?? The non-informed reader (i.e. most of our readers) will have no clue why this jump in subjects. Needs more background.
  • Cortes:
    • "impressed that he pledged to worship the Cross and to destroy his idols" ... can we be a bit less POV with "Cross"? Maybe "pledged to worship Jesus Christ"?
I don't really see the POV here, Cortes' visit was very brief, and I think it more likely that the Maya would have worshipped a physical object than an abstract concept (they liked to make sacrifices before an object), but have switched "Cross" for "Christ". Simon Burchell (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the capitilzation of "Cross" - it implies that this is the "true" belief - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've switched it back to "cross". Simon Burchell (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Spanish did not officially contact the Itza again until the arrival of Franciscan priests in 1618, when Cortés' cross was said to still be standing at Nojpetén.[52] From the lake, Cortés continued south along the western slopes..." very jarring change of chronology - can we move the bit about not contacting again to either the previous paragraph or to an explanatory footnote?
  • Conquest:
    • Oh, ouch .. POV in wikipedia voice "was protected by Satan from the light of Christ in the form of the Spanish Empire and the Roman Catholic Church." Yes, the Spanish thought that, but it really reads as though this is Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps a quote or toning down the pov?
Well it does say "the Spanish...viewed them as ignorant savages whose kingdom was protected by Satan from the light of Christ in the form of...", which I think makes clear that this was an opinion of the Spanish, and isn't Wikipedia's interpretation. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "light of Christ" part that is especially glaring - suggest rephrasing that to something like "protected by Satan from the Christianizing efforts of the Spanish Empire."? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK - duly rephrased. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early 17th:
    • Why do we suddenly link Yucatan here instead of all the previous times it's been used?
Must be an artefact of expansion, I've moved it. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Aj Kan Ek'" or "the current Kan Ek'"? or "Kan Ek'"? The last one implies a personal name, but it seems to have been a title, in which case "the Kan Ek'" would be better?
This one is always a headache, since it was both a name and a title; it was a name that could only be borne by the king. The elements of the name were inherited from mother's and father's lineages, and all kings of the Itza were kings by right of descendance from both royal lineages and therefore had the same name. This is explained in more detail in the Kan Ek' article, and Aj Kan Ek', Ajaw Aj Kan Ek', Kan Ek' etc. would all be correct. In a very general sense, it's like refering to Mr John Smith, John Smith or Mr Smith (not an exact parrallel but it gives you the idea). Simon Burchell (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish:
    • "with 20 Spanish soldiers and 80 Mayas from Yucatán" is an ARMY??? I think "force" or "expedition" would be a better description.
  • I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.
Many thanks for the review, I agree with you on most points but there are a few unstruck points above, with my comments. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article mentioned in the media

[edit]

Here in The Independent. The original Wikimedia blog post says that this article "has been assessed as one of the best on the project" while the Independent article says "The article is 14,825 words long, and has often been named as the highest-quality article on the entire website."[failed verification]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I'd have missed it otherwise... Nice to see two of my FAs mentioned ;). Simon Burchell (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies on General Capitaincy of Guatemala

[edit]

The General Capitaincy of Guatemala included, besides the named countries, Nicaragua. Eni2dad (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Guatemala" was the 3rd site of Santiago de los Caballeros de Guatemala, the capital of the Capitaincy. It was first at Iximche (25 July 1524), in 1527 it was moved to the valley of Almolonga (now known as "Ciudad Vieja"). In 1543 it was moved to the valley of Paychoy (now known as "Antigua Guatemala") and, in 1773 to the current site in the valley of Asunción with the name of Nueva Guatemala de la Asunción ("New Guatemala of the Assumption"). Thus, "Old Guatemala"(Antigua Guatemala) was the capital only from 1543-1773. Thus, the capital was not at "Old Guatemala" during the entire period mentioned in this article. [1] Eni2dad (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. It was certainly the capital while all of the principal events took place. If there is a mistaken reference somewhere in the article, please be specific about where. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now revised the entire article, searching on "Santiago", "Antigua", "Ciudad", "Iximche" etc. and have found no mention of where Santiago was in any given year, making its location irrelevant. The Santiago de los Caballeros de Guatemala article is linked from the text, and describes the various relocations. At any rate, for almost the entire period covered by this article, Santiago was at the Antigua Guatemala site, the exception being during Cortes' crossing of Petén, during the very early stages of the Spanish conquest. So, as far as I can see, there are no inaccuraces - but please point them out if I have missed them. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ wikipedia.org [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_los_Caballeros_de_Guatemala en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_los_Caballeros_de_Guatemala]. Retrieved 30 May 2016. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spanish conquest of Petén. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Spanish conquest of Petén. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Spanish conquest of Petén. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spanish conquest of Petén. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_conquest_of_Petén&oldid=1210459075"