Template:Did you know nominations/Carazamba
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Carazamba
[edit]- ... that the Guatemalan criollista novel Carazamba may be seen as an allegory of the incorporation of the remote Petén Department into the Guatemalan nation? Source: The work may be seen as an allegory of the incorporation of the remote Petén Department into the Guatemalan nation as a reaction against an external British threat. (Reference)
- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
- Reviewed: TV Corvi
5x expanded by Simon Burchell (talk). Self-nominated at 17:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC).
Article-wise, no major issues: new enough, long enough, fully referenced, with fair-use image. Hook-wise (or perhaps, more precisely, source text-wise), not quite sure: when we say "The work may be seen as an allegory of the incorporation of the remote Petén Department into the Guatemalan nation as a reaction against an external British threat", do we mean that the incorporation of Peten into Guatemala was a reaction against an external British threat, in which case the source text might be better rendered as "The work may be seen as an allegory of the incorporation of the remote Petén Department into the Guatemalan nation, which was a reaction against an external British threat"? Or did the British threaten only when Peten was incorporated, in which case we might want a slightly different rendering of the text again (and hence the hook too)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: Thanks for the review Ian. Although the literature studies aren't that specific, having written copious amounts on the Petén region and its incorporation into the Spanish Empire, I believe the situation was that the Petén Department was claimed by Guatemala, but the Guatemalan government had very little presence there. Illegal logging was taking place in Petén by British interests, and due to the situation in what was British Honduras, now Belize, (which had become British almost by default due to the large presence of British loggers there, and no Guatemalan presence) there was a real fear that a similar situation might occur. Therefore, there was a movement to develop Petén and incorporate its infrastructure into the greater Guatemalan nation. I'm rambling, but in summary, I think your suggested hook is probably better, and have changed it accordingly. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks Simon, I think the hook works then. I would only suggest altering the source text in the article likewise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Ian - I've done this. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry Simon, I just decided to double-check hook length after the changes and we're at 214 chars. Actually I wonder if we even need the last clause (i.e. "which was a reaction against an external British threat") but if you'd prefer to jkeep it then we'd better lose 15 chars somewhere else... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Ian - actually the hook does seem a bit clunky, I've trimmed as suggested. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Tks again Simon -- that should do it now! Hook short enough, interesting enough, and cited to non-English source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)