Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Ollantaytambo/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:56, 27 June 2009 [1].

Battle of Ollantaytambo

Nominator(s): Victor12 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because even though it is small (12kb prose size) it seems to me it reasonably covers most available information on its subject, has images that follow Wikipedia's guidelines, is properly written and throughly referenced. Any comments for further improvement are more than welcome. Victor12 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review from seddon

Please include the references at the bottom in the notes section, rename it references, and at the ref templates through the article with those four references where appropriate :)
I've checked the english spelling and corrected one word but I'll need someone to look through the spanish spellings.
Non-breaking spaces need to be added when stating the numbers of things, eg. 100 houses would be 100 houses. Go through the article and add them in :)

That's a very quick review, I'll have to give it further time to give a complete review but thatll keep you busy for now. Seddσn ^talk 00:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC) :)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Non-breaking spaces have now been added throughout the text. As for your suggestion on references, I don't understand it. Is there something wrong with the way they are presented right now? They seem to be ok to me. --Victor12 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hi Victor, thanks, that was an interesting read about a subject I wish I knew more about.
~~The See also section could do with a review, as currently all the links are repeating links already in the article.~~
A little more information about the terraces would be helpful. Were they of agricultural or military design or some combination and what sort of heights were involved?
~~Casualties on both sides are completely unknown? Would you mind just checking the sources as even an approximate figure on one side would be better than nothing.~~
Whether Cusco and Ollantaytambo are 70 km apart as per this article or 60 as per this (perhaps one is as the crow flies or using new bridges?) It would be nice to see consistency; in either event its a jolly long way for infantry to retreat in 24 hours. Would you mind checking that it was the army who got back so quickly not just some riders.

Also I've made a few tweaks to the prose, hope you like them. If not, it's a Wiki. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for your review. As for your comments:

You're right about the "See also" section, any suggestions on what links to put there?
About the terraces, those built by Manco Inca in the approaches to Ollantaytambo were military in nature as he was expecting an attack. Those in the Temple Hill in Ollantaytambo were of a ceremonial character as explained in the Ollantaytambo article. they are the same type of terraces found in other important Inca ceremonial sites such as Machu Picchu. I'm currently away from my sources but I'll check them soon to add more details on this structures.
About casualties, I've read every single account mentioned in the "Sources" section and there are no casualties figures in any of them. One reason for this is that Spaniard chroniclers (and even Titu Cusi Yupanqui, the only indigenous source) didn't care too much about dead Indians, friend or foe, so they didn't kept record of their deaths.
About the distance from Cusco to Ollantaytambo, the 70km figure is quoted by Hemming, the 60km figure is unreferenced. Anyway, I'll double check and get back to you on this.
As for prose, your changes are fine, thanks. --Victor12 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victor, the important thing for FA is that we confirm that a normal topic such as battle casualties is not covered because its not available - obviously we can't cover what can't be sourced so thanks for confirming that. Also I've redone the see also section, hope you like it. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've checked Protezen and Hemming. The 70 km figure actually comes from Protzen, as for the retreat, the relevant Hemming quote is But the Spaniards succeeded in riding out of the Yucay (another name for the Urubamba river) valley that night (the night of the battle) and they fought their way back into Cuzco the following day. Now that I look at it, it seems rather ambiguous so I'll double check with other sources. Protzen does not provide height figures for Ollantaytambo's terraces but I'll keep searching. --Victor12 (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Right off the bat I see one thing you need, a pronunciation guide for "Ollantaytambo" (see {{pron-en}}). I've been staring at that word for five minutes and the only thing that springs to mind is "olly olly oxen free!"

Well I have added a pronunciation guide, I believe it is correct but if I'm wrong feel free to correct it. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I see two or three uses of the word "indian", shouldn't this be natives? These people are not from India, and use of the word to describe New World natives is kind of archaic.~~ --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see why it is used. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job, I couldn't find anything that I couldn't fix myself after a little digging. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a. It seems reasonably well-researched, but the prose is not up to par. There are several simple errors that require basic proofreading, but I also find the writing clumsy and verbose in many places, indicating the need for an independent copyedit. Please get someone new to go through it with an eye toward conciseness and basic grammatical problems.
- Inconsistent comma use with parenthetic material. You usually use them, but you have many instances like "For a while Manco Inca ..." that clearly require them.
- "There is some controversy over the actual location of the battle" This is quite clumsy—more elegant: "The actual location of the battle is the subject of some controversy"
- "provides a better match for the descriptions" Same problem. You can express this in four words instead of seven: "better matches the descriptions"
- "For a while Manco Inca and the conquistadors maintained good relations, together they defeated Atahualpa's generals and reestablished Inca rule over most of the empire." The comma separator is ungrammatical.
- "so the Spaniards garrison" Is it "Spaniard garrison" or "Spaniards' garrison" or what?
- "Primary sources about the battle of Ollantaytambo are mostly written by Spaniards." So, not written all the way? Move "mostly" to the right to remove ambiguity.
- "when Hernando Pizarro's arrived in Cusco" Pizarro's what?
- "Weapons used by the soldiers were comprised of melee weapon such as maces" Many issues here. Incorrect use of "comprise"; something "comprises" something else but is not "comprised of". (Ex. A zoo comprises many animals.) Avoid repetitious "Weapons ... comprise ... melee weapons" as well (I'm assuming you meant "melee weapon" to be plural?). Chuck the whole thing and start over.
- "With this array of weapons, Inca warriors were at a disadvantage against Spanish soldiers as their wooden clubs and maces with stone or bronze heads were rarely able to kill armored Spaniards." Again, this seems an awfully laborious way of saying basically "The disadvantage of the Inca weapons was that the wooden clubs and maces with stone or bronze heads could rarely kill armored Spaniards." or, possibly more accurately, "... could rarely penetrate the Spaniards' armor."

--Laser brain (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.