Talk:Valley of Mexico/GA1

GA Review

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

I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections; images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall impression

I really enjoyed this article until I got to section "Air pollution". That section and the whole of the Hydrology section are too long and contain too much detail. Both need pruning. For example"Air pollution" can be summed up as:

The large, dense population and presence of millions of vehicle cause severe air pollution in the Valley. There is only one gap in the surrounding hilss, and the complex wind currents, varying from place to place and during the day as the temperature changes, do little to remove pollutants. In addition the Valley suffers from thermal inversions, especally in winter, so that cool air is trapped by a higher layer of warmer air. Although the more consistent summer winds help to clear the air, the high temperatures increase the formation of ozone and other ... As a result ... The concentration of lead in the air has been ... However levels of ... are still far above acceptable levels.

I understand how easy it is to go into too much detail, as I occasionally fall into the same trap. For example while working on Evolutionary history of life I wrote too much on the very earliest life, realised how long the article would be if I continued in the same style, copied the over-detailed material to my sandbox and then covered the topic much more concisely in the article. I suggest you save the "Air pollution" and "Hydrology" sections to sandbox pages, then rewrite these sections of the article starting with very concise summaries. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote this section but I do not think I can shorten it to what you seem to indicate. Air and water pollution are major factors in the quality of life here. Further below, you make a bunch of smaller comments on the section which I do not know how to square with what you wrote here.189.145.58.3 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty because all factors reinforce each other. I think a useful approach with such complex issues is to draft an outline outside the article, e.g on its Talk page. A bullet list is a useful outlining tool because you can list top-level apsects and then contributory points within each one, for example - and this is only an example:

• Lead sentence - this is sufficiently long and complex to need its own lead sentence.
• Causes:
  • High concentration of people and cars, increasing per capita use of fossil fuels.
  • Winter wind patterns:
    • Mainly N-S, inwards through the only gap in the surrounding hills.
    • Erratic within the Valley.
    • Thermal inversion.
  • Summer - no inversion, S-N winds, but intense tropical sunlight causes ozone build-up.
  • Rainy season (is this same as or overlapping with summer?) washes out some pollutants.
• Effects:
  • Surrounding hill have becom hidden by smog since 1940s.
  • Levels of various pollutants.
  • Loss of working hours due to respiratory problems.
• Efforts to mitigate pollution, and results.

You also need to be ruthlessly concise with the phrasnig, cutting out everything that is not absolutely essential. For example, while I'm sure Mexicans are justifiably proud of Dr. Molina's Nobel Prize, neither his name nor the Prize are essentila here - especially as he won the Prize for work on a different type of environmental problam.

Two other tips:

• Check this diff, as I think it may have droppoed a couple of points that might be useful.

Save the current version of the "Pollution" section (or the one before the edits shown in the diff) in a sub-page (e.g. Valley of Mexico/Pollution work area) so that you easily access text and refs during the re-write. It will also make you more confident about approaching the re-write, as you can restore the previous version if you run into difficulties.

And use the same approach for "Hydrology". --Philcha (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Coverage

• I'd expect to see something about the economics of the region, e.g. average income relative to rest of Mexico and to e.g. OECD average, dominant industries and any that are notably rising or declining (the obvious contrast in the USA is Silicon Valley vs the "rustbelt"), whether work locations are dispersed or concentrated (concentration leads to the joys of commuting, traffic congestion and pollution). I notice section "Spanish colonial rule and the Mexico City metropolitan area" says what % of Mexico's GDP the region produces, and suggest the other economnic info should go there too. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The valley is a geographic region, not an economic one. When talking about economics here Mexico City and the greater metropolitan area are always discussed. Fact of the matter is that the two are almost co-extensive. "Valley of Mexico" seems to be restricted to geography and to culture.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• How about sites / localities of special interest, e.g. what's left of Aztec Tenochtitlan, the other major pre-Conquest cities, notalbe Spanish colonial buildings, museums, art galleries, any famous scenery, “Floating Gardens of Xochimilco" (chinampas), etc. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• It would be good to make the point about the thin air in human as well as technical terms. Do lowlanders get altitude sickness? Bob Beamon's long jump record at the 1968 Summer Olympics stood for 23 years, and I've seen that attributed to decreased air resistance. --Philcha (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Structure

• Having the history before the geography looks wrong to me - even after reading the comment at Talk:Valley of Mexico that "History generally becomes before geography in wikipedia articles". Placing the geography first would have the advantage of defining the place names and allowing the reader to build a mental map for use while reading the rest - or at least already knowing where to look for places. Environmental concerns (pollution, dessication, etc.) appear to be scattered around, and should be grouped together. So I'd arrange the article: Geography; Climate; Hydrology; History; Environmental concerns; Notable places. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. Tip: place the "in use" template at the top of the article to discourage other editors from editing while you're re-structuring. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

History

• I've added {{main|History of Mexico}} --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First human habitation

• "The Valley of Mexico attracted early humans because the region was rich in biodiversity and had the capacity of growing substantial crops" cites Kirkwood's History of Mexico. Please provide page numbers - see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Including_page_numbers. When I'm citing books I usually give chapter titles as well as page numbers - or even instead, if chapters are not too long. chapter titles are helpful in case there are other editions (e.g paparback, other countries). --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• I've copyedited to "Pleistocene epoch" as correct geological usage - eras are a lot longer, e.g. Mesozoic. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• "began to leave a hunter-gatherer existence in favor of agriculture sometime between the end of the Pleistocene era and the beginning of the Holocene" is nonsense, as the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene are the same time, about 10,000 yrs ago. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about Acosta's Las ocupaciones preceramicas de la Cuenca de Mexico Del Poblamiento a las primeras sociedades agricolas as a source, and would prefer a peer-reviewed publication, preferably in English. The earliest archaeological maize (Zea mays L.) from highland Mexico: New accelerator mass spectrometry dates and their implications (2001) says the earliest cultivated maize dates to 6,250 calendar years ago, i.e. about 4,000 yrs after the start of the Holocene. OTOH Reassessing Coxcatlan Cave and the early history of domesticated plants in Mesoamerica (2005) gives 8025BC, i.e. just over 10,000 yrs ago, as the earliest of the samples studied (see table 3; Cucurbita), and Documenting plant domestication: The consilience of biological and archaeological approache also supports this date for domestication of a Cucurbita (squash) species. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Recrean 40 mil años de vida de la Cuenca de México isn't a good source - the masthead says "Foreign Affairs and Lifestyle" and the author's name is not given so we can't check his / her credentials. The best way to find good source for this kind of thing is usually Google Scholar. The problem is that the date of first human habitation of anywhere in the Americas is controversial: the "tradtional theory" is that the first imimigrants were the Clovis culture about 13,00 yrs ago; but there have been claims of evidence dating back as far as 50,000 yrs ago (see Clovis_culture#Evidence_of_human_habitation_before_Clovis). The dissifuclty is that little of the stuff I've seen on Google Scholar deals with Mexico, or at least not with the Valley. This is a really difficult period to cover - I've been through 12 pages of Google Scholar and found very little that's useful. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Teotihuacan

• The first sentence tries to squeeze too much in. "in the Valley of Mexico" is superfluous. How about "A culture and large pre-Columbian village have been named after ..."? --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• The Neiderberger ref looks like a chapter in a book called "Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico". --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Valley" in "The next oldest confirmed civilization is in the far south of the valley" should have a cap V as it's short for "Valley of Mexico". --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• The web page cited for the para begining "The next oldest confirmed civilization is in the far south of the valley and is called Cuicuilco" returns a 404 "not found error. See "Link check" below. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Teotihuacan and the Toltecs

• "Around 2,000 years ago, the Valley of Mexico became one of the world’s most densely populated areas and has remained so since" slightly surprises me, as China was way ahead of everyone else technologically and economically as the time. Can you please recheck that the source says all of this. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• The first occurrence of Teotihuacan should be wiki-linked. I usuually wiki-link first occurrence of a term in each section, unless there's a run of short sections - then I generally wiki-link terms and names about every 2nd section. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• The Hamnett refs are to a book. WP:CITE says page numbers should be given for refs to books. If there's a chapter title, you should provide that too. I don't mind if you give chapter titles without page numbers, provided the chapters are fairly short (under 10 pages) - that reduces the number of actual distinct refs needed, and is better for readers / reviewers if a book has editions with different pagination. Reviewers of articles I've submitted have been happy with this idea. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• A map that shows the locations of all the settlements named would be handy from here on. If you find or produce a map with symbols in the right places but no names,I can use template:Annotated image to add them - the result is clearer than text embedded in graphics, and easy to move around if the image is displayed at a different size. Note that the map image's description page should have one or more citations showing where you got the info. --Philcha (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• The historical facts about the Toltecs are a controversial topic. I suggest "Toltec culture", i.e don't imply that there was single Toltec state. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Can you please clarify whether there was an actual decline at Teotihuacan or other centres simply out-grew it. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Aztec Empire: The rise of the city-state in the valley

• Page numbers and/ or chapter titles for Hamnett, please. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Wiki-link Tollan . --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Teotihuacan Archaeological Site Museum doe snot present any useful info to back up the statements that cite it. See "Link check" below. --
• The first 75% of the 1st para cites Hamnett - page numbers and/ or chapter titles, please. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Did Tula actually shrink or was it simply eclipsed.? --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• The sentence "With this migration came the concept of a city-state based on the Toltec model" puzzles me. Do you mean, for example,, that migrants from places that had a Toltec culture brought the concept of a city-state with them? Please clarify. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• If the concept of a city-state came from the Toltec period, why is this section sub-titled "The rise of the city-state in the valley"? --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• "resulting in a conflictive political situation, and a complex system of agriculture in the valley" is not good: --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not clear how "None of these cities was completely autonomous or self-sufficient" caused a complex system of agriculture.
  • Re "conflictive political situation" - if there were wars, please say so. Otherwise e.g. "power struggles between communities were common".
• Wiki-link first occurrence of "chinampa", "aqueduct", "dike".
• "hydraulic societies" needs explanation, and I can find nothing useful to wiki-link to. Hydraulic empire seems irrelevant, as it's about the centralising tendencies of civilisations that need irrigation and flood control as they live in seimi-arid floodplains, and you've said the Valley was much less centralised. Google Scholar may help. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Despite being the dominant power, the need to rely on resources from other parts of the valley led to the Aztec Triple Alliance between Tenochtitlan, Tlatelolco and Tlacopan at the beginning of the empire" is clumsy. How about e.g. "Although Tenochtitlan was the dominant power, its dependence on resources from other parts of the valley forced it to ...."? --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The Spanish would change this status in the colonial period" looks as if it belongs in the next section, and needs to be re-phrased. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Spanish colonial rule and the Mexico City metropolitan area

• "After the Conquest, the Spanish rebuilt and renamed the city". Which city, to what? --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Page numbers and/ or chapter titles for Hamnett, please. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• A comment at Talk:Valley of Mexico questioned the frequent refs to Mexico City: Opportunities and Challenges for Sustainable Management of Urban Water Resources. I've checked up on Lead International and will accept Mexico City: Opportunities and Challenges for Sustainable Management of Urban Water Resources as a usable source for general information about the present and 20th century in the Valley - but not for anything that requires in-depth scientific or historical analysis; in other words, I regard it as at about the same level as a good newspaper. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Re " the city grew as the lakes shrank", why did they shrink? --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Re "Just after the Conquest, disease and violence had decreased the population in the valley, especially of the native peoples", doe sthat mean the Spanish were affected as well? --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• I've copyedited "the population grew again and grew all through the colonial and first century after independence" to "the population grew all through the colonial period and the first century after independence". Is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Re "Since the 1950s, urbanization has spread out from beyond the bounds of the Federal District to the surrounding jurisdictions, especially to the north into the State of Mexico making for the Mexico City Metropolitan area, which fills most of the valley" the 2nd half is so unclear I hestate tio copyedit it. Please clarify it. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• When quoting economic or population or any other stats, you should give the year to which they apply. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• What you say about population trends is not quite what the source says - please paraphrase exactly. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Geography

• Re "the valley has no natural drainage outlet and therefore is scientifically called a endorheic basin", I can't see what the jargon "endorheic basin" brings to the party, as "has no natural drainage outlet" has already done the job. . As a rule of thumb, if you use a concept 3 or more times, it's worth teaching and then using tech terms, but this case is the only use of "endorheic basin". --Philcha (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please captalise all occurrences of "the vValley". --Philcha (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Mexico City’s Water Supply : Improving the Outlook for Sustainability" appears to be a book. Page numbers and / chapter titles, please. --Philcha (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Please wiki-link the first occurrences of all place / region names, technical terms, etc. for which there are articles. --Philcha (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• "piedmont" = "foothills", which is clearer. --Philcha (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Please create a redirect page Valle de México that redirects to this one. --Philcha (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• "affecting the functioning of the water table"? water quality? --Philcha (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Climate

• "the dry season which runs from November to May, when the air is relatively drier" - please remove excess text. --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Air pollution

• Please wiki-link the first occurrences of all technical terms, etc. for which there are articles. --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Please trim to "vulnerable to severe air pollution problems" --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• "While pollution from human activities accumulates over four-to-six day cycles, similar to western U.S. cities, the valley’s wind patterns make it very difficult to clear out the resulting smog" is too long - the 4-6 days part adds no useful niofo, please remove it. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Please change all "the valley" to "the Valley". --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• "While pollution from human activities accumulates over four-to-six day cycles, similar to western U.S. cities, the valley’s wind patterns make it very difficult to clear out the resulting smog" cites Basin Traps Air Pollution In Mexico City: International Study Has Implications For U.S. Cities, but I don't see how the source supports the statement. --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The valley has its own internal wind patterns based on daily warming and cooling from sunlight ... These work to keep the air circulation of the valley relatively closed" cites Air Pollution in Mexico City, , but I don't see how the source supports the statement. Perhaps statements and sources got out of alignment when you were re-arranging content. --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Similar problem with "However, the most severe aspect of the valley’s climate ... most prominent during the winter months." --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Same with "Thermal inversion occurs when the cooler air of the valley is trapped ... where most of the industry is located." --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• In the last para, the first half repeats what's already said about particles penetrating lungs. Please remove the duplication. I suggest you move Molina's comments about health impact to just after the earlier statements about particles. --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hydrology

• "piedmont" = "foothills", please change all. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Page numbers and/ or chapter titles for " Mexico City’s Water Supply", please. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The old lake system

• It would be useful to have 3 maps around here: the 1519 map, the 1847 map and amodern one, so that the changes in the lakes are visible. This assumes the re-structure suggested in my comments on "Structure". --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Please wiki-link the first occurrences of all place / region names, technical terms, etc. for which there are articles. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• The article has 2 sets of refs to "Mexico Diccionario Porrua de Historia, Biografia y Geografia de Mexico-Tezcoco" (6th ed). While proviign page numbers is the usual approach, if the book is alphabeticsally arranged I normally provide the title of the entry, using eihter the chapter- param of {{cite book}} or the contribution= param of {{citaton}} ({{cite book}} does not recognise contribution=). Then plase consolidate all refs to the same entry. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Mexico City: Opportunities and Challenges for Sustainable Management of Urban Water Resources supports " All the other lakes flowed toward the lower Lake Texcoco" but not "which was saline due to evaporation". --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The lakes were fed by a number of rivers ... carrying runoff and snowmelt from the mountains" is not supported by the cited source. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Recrean 40 mil años de vida de la Cuenca de México is not a good source for scientific info ("Long before the arrival of the Spanish, ... as early as the Tlapacoya culture, around 10,000 BCE"), please find another one. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Page numbers and/ or chapter titles for Hamnett, please. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

History of water control in the valley

• This section and the next do not highlight the present-day dilemma that some of the sources mention: the rainy season is short but heavy; because of the intensive building and almost completely hard artificial surface (mainly concrete), the rain does not drain into to the soil and causes floods; Mexico City's huge population and inefficient water use cause excessive extraction from aquifers that are not being replenished in the rainy season; hence the city is sinking. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• This section has content that is superfluous and lengthens an already long article, please make it shorter. This article is about the Valley of Mexico, not Enrico Martínez, Porfirio Díaz or specific canals. The important things are:
  • The flood of 1555 was resonsible for the idea of opening drainage canals. How much damage did the 1555 flood do? What caused it? Had the Aztecs had trouble with floods?
  • The first project (completed when?) was the Nochistongo, draining ito the Tula valley. Did not prevent the Great Flood of 1629. How much damage did the 1629 flood do? What caused it?
  • Grand Canal largely completed in 1867, but did not prevent further floods.
  • City sank. Why? --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Emisor Central buit - when? --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Should mention that the present-day floods are not just rainwater but sewage as well --Philcha (talk)
• In the "Grand Canal was built parallel to the Nochistongo one ending in Tequixquiac", do you mean the Grand Canal ended at Tequixquiac? Please clarift the text. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Why does the Grand Canal have a diameter? I can understand width and depth, but ... Is this a language issue? In normal English a canal is an artificial water-way with an open surface. Do you mean it is (mainly) a tunnel?--Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Re "did not solve the problem of flooding in the city", where there any major floods after 1867? --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Re "From the beginning of the 20th century, Mexico City began to sink rapidly", why?
• Re "continued sinking of the city (as much as seven meters) weakens the system of water collectors and pumps" do you mean they were damaged or blocked, or simply that they were not strong enough to raise the water another 7m? Please clarify the text. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Re Emisor Central, how was it "damaged by overwork"? -Philcha (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Drinking water and sinking=

• Too long and detailed, see above. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Link check

I recommend you use the Link checker - it's listed at User:Philcha#Tools if you forget to make a note of it. At the time of writing the report shows: --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Two 404 "not found" codes. Usually the publisher has either taken the pages off line or re-organised the site and forgotton to add redirects. Your options are:
  • Remove the content - often painful.
  • Find new sources.
  • Use the Way Back Machine to search for a saved copy. If you use this, you must specify archiveurl=(page returned by WBM) and archivedate=(date of the archive copy you selected in the WBM's search results page).
• A 101 "connection timeout". These are sometimes temporary, please recheck. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What happens next

I expect to see significant improvements in the next 7 days, otherwise I will have to mark the article as a "fail". I would not be happy about this, as a lot of this article is pretty good. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted comments 7 days ago and there have been no responses here and no edits to the article (apart from 1 poss vandalism, reverted). If there is no action in the next couple of days I will have to mark the article as a "fail". --Philcha (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are at least 40 points you've identified, article actually now looks further from GA standard than it appeared initially. I'm afraid that I don't have the books that Thelma has to correct some of the points. Thanks for your time in reviewing it I hope Thelma can address all of these points unfortunately he has been very quiet of late. I would fail it for now, but looks promising for the future anyway. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some other potentially useful sources

From Google Scholar, which is the best way to find good sources for articles in "academic" subjects:

• The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule (Charles Gibson, Stanford UP; 1964) gives a potted pre-history, but the book is old, may be out-of-date.
• Imperfect Balance (ed. David Lewis Lentz; ), chapter "Prehispanic Agricultural Systems in the Basin of Mexico" by Emily McClung de Tapia (pp 121-146) is good on general background, and points out that the expansion of Mexico City has destroyed a lot of archelogical evidence, including re early cultivation.
• Paleosols in the Teotihuacan valley, Mexico:evidence for paleoenvironment and human impact
• Relations between man and environment in the development of precolonial settlements in the basin of Mexico (2003) looks like a useful overview and citable source for most of the history, from Pleistocene-Holocene boundary to Conquest.
• Investigating Chinampa Farming - nice article on chinampas, good source as the author is director of a univ's Paleobotany Lab.

GA review abandoned

Thelmadatter cannot respond to this review because of real-life difficulties. Hence I have to declare that the article has failed to reach GA status.

I regret having to do this, as it is an interesting and varied article. Apart from the need to make "Hydrology" more concise, most of the outstanding issues are fairly minor. Thanks for the work you've put into this. I hope the difficulties are quickly resolved and that the article passes as GA before too long. --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - - If you want to start a new section of the Talk page, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.

---