Talk:Spanish conquest of the Maya/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 19:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review

Hi there, I will be reviewing this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria. As its quite a long article, this review might take a couple of days. I will list below any problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and will also append a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. Once I have finished the article's editors will have seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• "Spanish colonisation of the Americas, in which Spanish colonisers" - too much colonise, can you find another word?

• I've rephrased as Spanish conquistadores. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Should Native in "Spanish and native tactics" be capitalised?

• I don't think so, it looks strange to me. Looking at the Cambridge dictionary, B2 has uncapitalised "native customs and traditions", equivalent to the usage here. Looking here, under item 3 of how to capitalise correctly, adjectives derived from a proper noun are capitalised. In this case, native isn't. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fine by me - I'm more used to Native North Americans, where its always capitalised, but each to their own.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing. The sentences are too short and too many begin with "The Spanish". Try joining some of them up and introducing some sub-clauses.

• I've moved this around a bit, combined some sentences and rephrased a bit. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Before the conquest, this territory contained" - "this territory" isn't descriptive enough. Try "Before the conquest, Maya territory contained a number of competing kingdoms" instead.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Link the modern territories in the first paragraph of geography.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why does the "Background to the Conquest" section come before "Maya region before the conquest". It would seem to make more sense chronologically and narratively to have them the other way around.

• Good point; I've switched the order. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, having read further I'm not sure there is any need for this section at all - all the information can be easily merged into the First Encounters/Yucatan Coast sections further down without losing anything since you mention Columbus and Cortes in the lower section. Just a thought though. I won't make it essential.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to keep this section, since it puts the conquest into a larger context, and sets up the basis for colonial jurisdiction. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• OK, no problem.

• "10th century AD" AD is redundant here - you've just mentioned the 16th century without specifying the era.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Mani and Sotuta" link these polities. Why are some polities linked and some not. Even if they have no articles, there's no harm in red linking them.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• "authority to be overthrown; However, Spanish exploited" should be "authority to be overthrown; However, the Spanish exploited"

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "for Spanish administration, were vulnerable to" I think needs "for Spanish administration, were also vulnerable to" to make it scan better.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Link Nahua.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• You discuss the reducciones twice in two sections. Merge these into one discussion of the issue.

• Oops, I've trimmed the repeated info. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• In "diseases", is there somewhere you could link to explaining natural medical resistance to disease? I just looked and was surprised I couldn't find a suitable one. Do you have a suggestion?

• I've linked to Immune system - there doesn't appear to be a dedicated article to the human immune system. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• " loyalty to the king of Spain" - King is a proper noun here.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• " lost in the hill north" - hills?

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Tz'utujil" or "Tz'utuhil"? Be consistent.

• I've corrected the one instance of Tz'utuhil. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Header "Conquest of the Chiapas Highlands" needs an end date.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The battle lasted various days," do you mean several days?

• Yes, changed. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Godoy's attempt to subdue the Maya around Champoton" - is something missing here? This feels like a sentence fragment.

• Oops, corrected with "was unsuccessful" Simon Burchell (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "and Uspantán was trying" - I'm glad its linked because I thought Uspantan was a person originally. Can you clarify in text?

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "On 8 November 1546 and alliance of eastern provinces" - an alliance?

• Corrected. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Minor but time-consuming and important thing. There is a lot of red ink among the bibliography. Can you fix the problems in the templates?

• This only happened very recently (in the past couple of days) with a change to the citation template, the CS1 gods are currently running through all articles using the broken parameter - it should be fixed in due course (and there is currently an RFC at WP:MOS that may reverse the change). Simon Burchell (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fine, no problem then. After I wrote this I noticed some of my old articles doing the same thing. Lets leave it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Can you give dates for the conflict in the first paragraph? Even approximate ones would help.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• In "Background to the conflict" link Aztec, Tenochtitlan and include a link to the conquest. There's no need to go into depth, but since you mention this its worth allowing a reader to click through if they wish.

• All linked. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Since there is a whole section on the epidemics there's no need to include the information on smallpox in this section.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the section on Spanish tactics, particularly the first paragraph I get the feeling I'm reading a list rather than a narrative. What did all these technological advantages mean in practice? The Native weapons section handles this better.

• I've added a little more info, particularly on horses. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Likewise, in Tabasco" is this still in 1697?

• No. I've reordered the paragraph. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• " into the books of Chilam Balam" - who? Either explain or link.

• I've linked it. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1517, Francisco Hernández de Córdoba" - has he been linked earlier? If not, link him here. Same for Velázquez and Grijalva. You could link Spanish Cuba and Spanish Florida too.

• I've linked everything as suggested, except Spanish Florida, which hadn't yet been conquered. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Maya arrowheads tended to shatter on impact" was this because they were made from obsidian?

• Actually from flint. I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "of Soconusco were less likely to be rounded up" - less likely than whom?

• Elsewhere in Chiapas, I've clarified. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "was established at the beginning of the 16th century and lasted less than two years" - can you be a bit more specific? 1500s? 1520? Any idea?

• I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Spanish were supported by indigenous warriors from central Mexico" I thought the Spanish were isolated. Where did these reinforcements come from? Were they hastily made allies, newly arrived conscripts or had they been with the Spanish all along?

• They are likely to have arrived with the Spanish, but the sources don't specify. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "They also managed to acquire special privileges from the Crown in order to stabilise the colony" - what does this mean? How did the privileges help?

• Sample edict added. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Montejo the Younger sent his cousin against them" - does his cousin not have a name? Or have I missed it somewhere else?

• Heh, no, yet another Francisco de Montejo! Named and linked... Simon Burchell (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Southern lowlands, 1618–97" - I'm sure its me getting confused, but there seems to be a gap in coverage in the lowlands between 1525 and 1618. What happened in the meantime? I'm sure its there somewhere but I'm not sure where.

• There was no Spanish activity in this remote region since Cortes passed through in 1525. I've added this info to the relevent para. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Spanish and pardo and 100 were Maya" - pardo?

• A mixed-race Spanish colonial caste - I've linked it. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• "They were approached by about fifty finely-dressed and unarmed Indians" - I think it is important to be specific. If these people were Mayans then say so - it may be me being over sensitive, but I'm not sure that using Mayan (their name for themselves) and Indian (an anglicisation of a quasi-perjorative Spanish term for all Native American peoples) interchangeably is a good idea.

• Indian is used frequently in the academic sources, in English and Spanish, and isn't generally considered perjorative, at least with regard to Latin America. I've used the term various times in the article so as not to overuse "native" or "indigenous". Simon Burchell (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. Still feels a little odd to me but I'll bow to your superior knowledge on this score.

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

• The top of the article looks a bit disorganised to me (though maybe that's just my browser). Is there a nice image that could go there? I'd put the image of Alvarado at the top, with the "Spanish conquest of the Maya" box below it and the navboxes below that, although its just a suggestion.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this looks much better. Thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why is the final paragraph of the lead sourced? Far be it from me to complain about excess sourcing, but is there any particular reason these parts are sourced?

• There were a couple of redundant cites. The view of the natives as infidels is not cited elsewhere; the two-century length of the conflict is evident from reading the article, but is explicit in the cite. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, no problem.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Its not essential, and I realise space is at a premium, but in the "Background to conflict" section a little more on the further conquests in Mexico might help establish the acquisitive nature of Spanish colonialism. Just a couple of lines with a few links would help.

I'll see what I can dig out - though it may not be immediate. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Just a personal thing but I've always preferred "European" to "Old World" as an adjective in these contexts (I know Europeans hardly had a monopoly on swords and warhorses, but the Spanish were a European army). Its only a matter of taste though.

• I've left it as Old World, because there is a mention of African slaves and freedmen - although they were likely to be using Spanish equipment, they may well have fashioned traditional weapons for personal use. Additionally, one can't ignore the recent Muslim influence in that period of Spanish history, and the trading of horses and weapons across the Mediterranean, off-topic but relevant. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks for taking on the review of this rather lengthy article. I hope to have time to work through all of your points over the coming days. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. You're clearly engaged in the process, so barring a massive and unexpected difference of opinion I don't see any problems passing this once the review is done. Take all the time you need.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to put this here because I'm not going to base the review on this issue either way, but there are three things which are niggling at me and which you should look at. All of these will have to be fixed before a shot at FAC, although none are pivotal for GA and there's no need to work on them for this review. --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The first is the prose. At times it is very good, while at others there are a great many short sentences that don't always run smoothly. I understand that this is a peril when one simplifies complex events or ideas for a general article such as this, but it doesn't always make for easy reading.

The second is that there are many short sections which break up the text. For a historical article like this, narrative flow is important and that can be lost with the many stage two headings. A good example of this is the events of 1522-1525, which could be more smoothly addressed with one longer section of subheadings under a larger heading.

The third is linking. I know lots of Wikipedians get upset at overlinking, but in this article, which has lots of places and people with names I can't pronounce, more links are better. Quite often I came to a name and couldn't remember whether it had been linked earlier or not and then couldn't be bothered to look. Since this is a general article it would be nice to have a link to click on for more details if we haven't seen a name before (or even just in a while). On top of that, there are too many places were we really need a link: given that this article is an overview, I would expect every person, place and polity mentioned to have a blue link where I can learn more (FAC will probably insist on it). Even if this is just a pipe dream, the article does need more links than it currently has.

Thanks, this article is in general a compressed summary of the collection of child articles, which were written first. As such, I cut it down a lot and reordered it, and am aware that this will have produced some interruptions in flow. Reviews such as this help to point out the problems, which are often invisible to me because I've spent so much time working through the article. I think the process of compressing the info here also resulted in the loss of many of the wikilinks, in fact many more than I thought. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought it must be something like that - I've had the same issue with articles of this sort myself. I can't pick up on all of these issues on such a large article myself, but I wanted to flag them up as general problems to be looked at. They won't hold up the review. I'm about 3/4 though it now and should have the review finished tomorrow. I'll leave the last comments and then a general summary of my opinion. Given how fast you are racing though this I expect the article to be a GA by tomorrow night!

• If ever an article needed maps this is one! I know how hard it is to get free-use maps for this sort of thing, and I'm certainly not going to hold it against you in this review, but its something to think about.

• I've added a map of the invasion routes into Guatemala that I created some time ago for the conquest of Guatemala article. If I have time I will develop some more - I haven't finished updating the map I created for the Spanish conquest of Chiapas article, and will probably put it in here when it is finished. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary

This is an excellent article on a fascinating but obscure topic, generally well written, definitely well researched and extremely well sourced. I'm no expert on the subject so I can't be certain it is comprehensive, but I'd be staggered if you'd missed anything out. This really is an extremely fine Wikipedia article and I will be happy to promote it once the last few pointers above are tidied up. If you plan on taking if forward to FAC you'll need to address some of the more general points above, particularly with regards linking to significant people and places, but I'm sure it would do well there. Congratulations on a great body of work!--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I think I'm finished with the changes, unless you have further comments in response. Many thanks for the detailed review, it really has helped polish the article. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, there is still an awful lot of talk bouncing back and forth that is related to the broken template parameter, and I'm a little wary of putting a lot of work into fixing the templates when either (1) the CS1 maintainers will be coming through soon enough to do it anyway or (2) the changes to the template are reverted as a result of the RfC at WP:MOS. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about the template - sounds like its way over our heads anyway. Otherwise this is great and I'm happy to pass the article. A prodigious piece of work and a great improvement to the encyclopedia, congratulations!--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)