Talk:Mixco Viejo/GA1

Active discussions

GA ReviewEdit

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 16:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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 of awkward prose
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    I'm unclear as to what the subject IS... is it both sites or just one?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
  • Lead: "The site has now been identified as Jilotepeque Viejo..." which site though? The subject of the article or the capital?
  • Lead: Was the city captured in 1525 also? Or later? It's unclear from the lead...
  • I'm totally lost here. Are we discussing BOTH sites? Or only one? If only one - why do we have the long discussion about the capital of the Poqomam and it's capture? I think we need to decide what the subject of the article IS and stick to it. Right now, the reader is confused ... if we're covering BOTH sites, this needs to be made clearer. And if we're covering both sites, is the capital site discovered? If so, we need to discuss it's ruins also...
  • For the time being, all that is known about the Poqomam capital is covered in that section. Unfortunately, the mix-up in identification of the sites has hindered study. The Chajoma capital has been investigated archaeologically, under the assumption that it was the Poqomam capital. So the situation is that the Chajoma ruins (Jilotepeque Viejo) had been well described archaeologically, trying to use the archaeological data to support the history of a different site entirely. In effect, this means that there is certainly room for the articles to be split in future, but the history of the Poqomam capital needs to be covered here since there is still plenty of literature out there that assumes the two are the same - especially anything older than ten years or so. There were plans afoot at some point to rename the ruins and drop the "Mixco Viejo" name entirely but they never came to anything. So:
  • Historically, "Mixco Viejo" meant "Old Mixco"; the capital of the Poqomam.
  • More recently, misidentification has meant that "Mixco Viejo" means the archaeologcial site and tourist attraction of the Chajoma capital.
  • Since both are referred to as "Mixco Viejo", for the time being they fall within the same article. As far as I am aware, no archaeologcial study of the real Poqomam capital (now called "Chinautla Viejo") has been undertaken. If you can think of a way to clarify this in the article, let me know. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Can we distill what you just wrote above down into a simple paragraph to put at the beginning of the article? This would help make it clear to the reader that you're covering both subjects. And there should probably be a bit more on the context of how the thinking changed and why ... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've put another paragraph into the intro - also why doubts were raised. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Postclassic: "The site was abandoned after the Spanish conquest and the inhabitants were moved to San Martín Jilotepeque, after which the area was never reoccupied." Okay... if they inhabitants were forcibly moved (as the text implies), we need to state who did that. If they were not forcibly moved, but just left, the text should probably read "...inhabitants moved to ..."
  • They were forcibly relocated by the Spanish; I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Once you've established that the dating is AD .. you don't need to keep repeating AD after dates - the reader is generally presumed to remember that...
  • Pyramid C1: "The presence of metal artefacts associated with the earliest construction phase demonstrates the short span of the site..." why does it demonstrate this?
  • Explained why (earliest metal artefacts in the Maya region dated to about 9th century AD). Simon Burchell (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Platform C2: Is it "The Platform" or "The platform"? You use both in successive sentences...
  • Structure C8: "The entrance accessed the alley from a patio situated in the southern portion of the residence..." something is missing here.. do you mean "The entrance is accessed the alley from a patio situated in the southern portion of the residence..." Also, seems that every sentence in this paragraph starts with "The..." can we vary this a bit?
  • I've rephrased this, hopefully it's clearer now. I also changed some of those sentence beginnings. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Caves: You say there are three caves, but only describe two..
  • The paper that deals with the caves mentions the existence of 3 but is only concerned with the 2 that were artificially modified. This is explained in the brief intro to the caves section; there really is no further information available on the third cave. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Are the ruins in a park? Privately held? Who owns them and runs the museum?
  • I know, having visited the site, that it is under the protection (and presumably the ownership) of the Guatemalan Institute of Anthropology and History - I cannot find any reliable reference that explicitly states this however. What I have found is a piece of legislation referring to when it was declared a protected archaeological zone by the Ministry of Education (as required under Guatemalan law). I hope this is enough. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
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. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for the review. I think I've dealt with all of your points - please let me know if anything still needs looking at. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks good... sorry for the slight delay - I've been gardening a lot trying to get everything planted before the heat of summer attacked. Passing now! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Return to "Mixco Viejo/GA1" page.