Talk:Tikal/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reywas92 ^Talk 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad to see this important article at GAN! Here are some comments from my first read-through:

Since Tikal National Park redirects to the article, I believe it would be appropriate to bold that in the lead. As this is also the main article for the park, there should be more information about the National Park, including at least its founding date, that it was Guatemala's first NP, and a link to List of national parks of Guatemala.

Tikal National Park deserves its own article, bu of course some briefer mention here too. Perhaps even an initial stub could be fashioned out of that redirect.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some basic info about the National Park at the end of the Location section. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd prefer if you don't separate that. It would only be redundant to the great information about the region here.

"Regarding the fauna, agouti...can be seen there regularly" > "Animals that inhabit Tikal include..." The link to White-nosed coati should be White-nosed Coati (though the piped text can remain lowercase), and link to Ocellated Turkey rather than oscillated curkey.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Average annual rainfall" > "The average annual rainfall"

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could merge the Late and Middle Preclassic sections.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hyphen in Filmmaker

Sorted. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Starwars.com does not mention Tikal.

The link is for the production date of the film, the reference to Tikal being used to film Star Wars is in David Webster's Fall of the Ancient Maya (note 80 as currently numbered). Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tikal Temple I is a stub, and much of its information is redundant. It should and can easily be merged into this article.

Although the article is a stub, as with many buildings, groups and even individual sculptures it is probably worthy of an article itself, and to leave in the link may encourage someone (who knows, maybe even me) to expand it into a full article. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Simon, it does no harm to have this in its own article, & there's ample material and sources to expand it in its own direction.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is there conflicting information (height), all of it is redundant except for the size of the base and Kukulcan, which I think should be included here. Perhaps an alternative would a Structures of Tikal subarticle that would include this and more detailed info on the other structures as well. Are there others that you left out like the stelae that could be included?

The reference to Kukulkan appears out-of-place, and I doubt its accuracy - Kukulkan was the Postclassic feathered serpent in Yucatán. Whatever is depicted in Temple I, it isn't Kukulkan - it's probably the Vision Serpent, a forerunner of Kukulkan. There are an enormous amount of structures at Tikal, even a "Structures at Tikal" article could only be a general summary of the most important, and each of the main temples deserves its own article. If anything I'll rewrite the stub at some point. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"related to the "Venus" and "star" symbols" > "related to the Venus and star symbols" Unnecessary

But perhaps relevant for someone interested particularly in the interaction between the Maya and Teotihuacan. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd read Reywas's comment as saying the double-quote marks were unnecessary, not the info itself. They could be dispensed with, but having them emphasises they are labels, provisionally assigned, not literal or definitive descriptions. I think that's a valid purpose in context here.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation marks are never used for emphasis. It stills makes perfect sense without them.

I've removed the quotes. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a nice photo, but what exactly is a stela? And what happened to the missing numbers?

First instance of "stela" is now linked. Only the most important stelae are listed, in other words those that are covered in more general works on the Maya. I could have gone on and on with this article, the city being so important to Classic Maya civilization, and I didn't even look at the many archaeological reports I have available. I'll expand the list prior to submitting for FA, if I should get around to that. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well a reader still wouldn't know what they are. I suggest linking it again in the Stelae section and include a summary of their purpose, what they actually are, and what you just told me.

I've linked "stela" again and given a brief description. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With so many temples and structures, it would be really nice to have a map of the site.

I've knocked up a quick map of the site core. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The popular culture needs references, or it can just be removed as WP:TRIVIA.

Believe me, I don't need many excuses to remove pop culture sections...it's gone! Simon Burchell (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gill, Richardson B.; Harrison, Peter D.; and Kerr, Justin are not used as notes so they are not needed in the references.

Those sources were consulted and used at some point, not only for certain facts (covered also by other sources) but also in cross-checking and validating other sources. They contain info highly relevant to this article. IMO it's good and honest practice to maintain a biblio of sources consulted / sources influencing editing decisions, even if there's no direct citation pointing to them right now.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redlinks of authors in the references should be removed.

IMO having a couple of redlinks is not problematic (for GA, or in general), and their purpose of highlighting needed articles outweighs any visual concerns. The ones that are there are deserving of their own articles at some hopefully not-too-distant point.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fantastic article and I hope to pass it soon! Reywas92 ^Talk 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments - I'll work through this list in the next day or two. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interspersed a couple of additional comments/responses in the above.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it another read-through, but it looks great. Also, you may want to stagger some pictures left/right, and with so many beutiful photos of Tikal, you can add some more since there is room. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've dealt with most of the points you've raised, and added some more pictures. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

If Dos Pilas was founded in 690, how could they have been at war in the Early Classic period?

Looks like a few bits got mixed there during expansion...thanks for spotting that.Simon Burchell (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many sections such as Terminal Classic have few links, making them a little harder to read. You may want to add some more, and it's okay to re-link if it's that much later in the article.
Need ref for "Recently, a project exploring the defensive earthworks..."

Done Simon Burchell (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some places have meters (feet), but others have feet (meters). Be consistent.

Should have metric first in all cases now. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like File:Tikal From Temple IV.jpg or File:Tikal Giaguaro.jpg? There's still more room for more puctures for such a huge site. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's good enough for GA and better! I hope to see you at WP:FAC! I put this under Archaeology on WP:GA; you can change it if you think it's better elsewhere. By the way Rulers of Tikal could potentially make a great FL. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reywas92! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]