Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Olmec colossal heads/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by GrahamColm 09:42, 12 August 2012 [1].

Olmec colossal heads edit

Olmec colossal heads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec colossal heads are an iconic form of ancient Mesoamerican sculpture. This article recently passed GA and I am comfortable that it is a comprehensive overview of the topic with no major aspect missing from the article. I've had an off-wiki subject matter expert look at the article, and recommended changes have been incorporated where possible. My last article to be spot-checked was Spanish conquest of Guatemala, in March. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how page notations are spaced
  • FN34, 56: formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you use Coe and Koontz or just Coe for footnotes
  • What is SULAIR?
  • SULAIR is actually defined in the last of the references as "Stanford University Libraries and Academic Information Resources (SULAIR)" Simon Burchell (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN61: is this Baker?
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Where possible I've dealt with this in the refs. There are still one or two instances of ".)." that seem to be an artefact of the cite template (e.g. Coe and Koontz). Simon Burchell (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is Norman?
  • Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preliminary comment Looks very thorough as usual, but I won't I think be able to read through fully for 2 weeks. Might one squeeze in a dimension to some of the pic captions, or even a photo with a person for scale? They are truly big, & it's worth driving that home. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Johnbod - I can see a decent enough photo on Commons of a head with people next to it (the head doesn't yet have a photo in the article). I'll trim it a little and include it when I get a moment. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, I suppose some may object without model release forms or something, especially with the kid. In the one with the guy lying flat he is not very identifiable & this could be an alternative. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have the sculpture in the current pic, since it is not included in any other photo. How about if I white-out the people so just the size comparison is left? Simon Burchell (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, take a look now - I've anonymised the pic, and I got through the OTRS ticket for San Lorenzo 10 this morning, so that's up too. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are goo. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it's still here! Sorry!
  • Maybe rearrange the 1st 2 sentences to make the connection emerge sooner: from:
"Olmec colossal heads are a distinctive feature of the Olmec civilization of ancient Mesoamerica.[1] The first archaeological investigations of Olmec culture were carried out by Matthew Stirling at Tres Zapotes in 1938, spurred by the discovery of a colossal head there in the 19th century." to:
"Olmec colossal heads are a distinctive feature of the Olmec civilization of ancient Mesoamerica,[1] which spurred the first archaeological investigations of Olmec culture by Matthew Stirling at Tres Zapotes in 1938, after the discovery of a colossal head there in the 19th century." or:
Olmec colossal heads are a distinctive feature of the Olmec civilization of ancient Mesoamerica,[1], and the discovery of a colossal head at Tres Zapotes in the 19th century spurred the first archaeological investigations of Olmec culture by Matthew Stirling in 1938."
  • Roughly how wide/large is the area within which the heads are found? The map is later, I know, but something in the text earlier would help.
  • The 17 (is it) heartland heads all come from 4 sites, which I don't think is said early on.
This is actually mentioned in the first paragraph of the intro: Seventeen confirmed examples of stone heads are known, all from within the Olmec heartland on the Gulf Coast of Mexico, in the states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant something like: "Seventeen confirmed examples of stone heads are known, all from four sites within the Olmec heartland on the Gulf Coast of Mexico, in the states of Veracruz and Tabasco, an area extending some 150 x 50 miles". - or whatever it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added the approximate geographic extent of the Olmec heartland. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just moved this from the intro into the new "Olmec civilization" section, near the beginning of the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...due to the movement of many from their original context ADD in Pre-Columbian times or since the Conquest". maybe?
I've added prior to archaeological investigation Simon Burchell (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... dated to the Early Preclassic ADD Period" (or period)?, and to any others on first mention, or at least get it in the sentence once, as you do in "Dating".
Done, I think. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentences 2-4 of "Characteristics" repeat the end of the lead verbatim or nearly so, with only a short paragraph in the intervening section. Maybe try to expand & rewrite some, or merge into the 2nd para here.
I think I copied and pasted straight into the intro. I've rephrased there. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "recarved" need a hyphen? I think so. Not "reworked" though.
Done - except in the references, where I've maintained the original article title as written (Porter). Simon Burchell (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose gets a bit clunky at the individual details, eg: "San Lorenzo Colossal Head 2 (also known as San Lorenzo Monument 2)[34] was reworked from a monumental throne.[27] The head stands 2.69 metres (8.8 ft) high and measures 1.83 metres (6.0 ft) wide by 1.05 metres (3.4 ft) deep. The head weighs 20 tons. Colossal Head 2 was discovered in 1945 when Matthew Stirling's guide cleared away some of the vegetation and mud that covered it..." Some "It"s and merged sentences needed maybe. Repetition in Tres Zapotes Monument A section.
I've smoothed out the prose in the invidividual heads sections, and merged the repeated info in Tres Zapotes Monument A. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olmec has more detail than here on the "African origin" theory, which may well all be nonsense, but here should have the longest account.
The main article on the "African origin" is Olmec alternative origin speculations, linked from the article. I don't really see any need to give undue weight to these theories here when an article already exists dealing specifically with the subject. African origin theories are not much touched upon in the literature, and I've done quite well getting as much in as I have in order to balance the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick para near the start summarizing the Olmec cultural and artistic context would help.
I've added a short "Olmec civilization" section. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've added a para to it, plus a pic, as discussed. But let me know any further issues. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe more later, Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming back! I'll try to work through your comments this evening. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the above resolved, so happy to Support Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, the added paragraph, and the support! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments.

  • Under "dating" the article says "Estimates of the time span of head production vary from 50 years to 200 years". Then later it says "the whole project may well have taken years from beginning to end". If the lower limit of estimates is 50 years then "may well have" is not correct: it definitely did. Is there a disagreement betwen sources behind this variation in language?
  • There is no disagreement but I'll need to clarify what I mean. The 50-200 years is the estimated period during which heads were produced; "the whole project" refers to the production of an individual head. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manufacture - Is it possible to clarify from the sources whether the boulders were transported before or after carving? As currently written it appears the boulders were first transported, then carved, except the text later says "The flat backs of many Olmec heads would have facilitated such transport", which implies carving first, then transport. Do we know which? I think it would be good if the section could be reworked to have a para that directly addressed the relationship between transport and carving, including the various scholarly speculation on the matter. At the moment, it appears a bit fragmented across the "manufacture" section, and not always consistent.
  • I've rephrased and reordered the section. Is it any better now? Simon Burchell (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Tres Zapotes", is there any summary available of how these two heads differ stylistically from the rest? hamiltonstone (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a sentence or two at the beginning of the "Tres Zapotes" section. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. This is a very interesting piece. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for resolving those issues. I'm a support, but do have a terminology suggestion / query. The article refers to the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, but the map refers to the "Tuxtla Mountains", which are the same thing. Perhaps there should be a bracketed alternate term, either in the lead, or in additional text in the caption of the map, that makes it clear that these are interchangeable terms? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment – It's a fascinating topic and the current content is outstanding, so I'm strongly leaning toward support. However, after reading it through, I was left with a couple of questions answered:

  1. There is nothing to suggest how the particular skill and style of the artists were derived. Are there earlier examples of Olmec art that show a progression of skill improvement, or has none of that survived?
  • The most naturalistic Olmec sculpture is the earliest surviving sculpture, it emerges fully formed into the archaeological record. I've added a couple of sentences to the "characteristics" section. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's unfortunate. Thank you for the addition and clarification. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. How were these rocks carved? Basalt is a very hard stone; it can reach a 6 on the Moh's scale. How then were the Olmec able to sculpt them using primitive tools? Have they found any examples of these tools?
  • The "manufacture" section does mention the use of basalt cobbles as hammerstones, and the use of abrasives, but I'll see if I can find anything else. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aye, you're right. My eyes must have skimmed past that part. Sorry. RJH (talk)

Even if it were speculative, some information about these points would be useful. Thank you for the interesting read. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning support: I have spot-checked this article, as Diehl's 2004 book, Coe and Koontz' 2002 book, and of course the online PDFs were available to me. All the pages I checked support the article text, and although some of the article's wording is a little closer to that of the sources than I would write, nothing I checked rises to the level of close paraphrasing. I do have some nit-picks, though.

  • The referencing for the lead—where the entire first paragraph has inline citations and the other three don't—feels strange. I think it would be better if the lead were cited throughout or uncited throughout. Everything in that paragraph is supported by text in the body, negating the need for citations, except (I think) the sentence about how the 19th century discovery inspired Stirling's excavations. I think that fact is worth including in the body, too, probably in the entry for Tres Zapotes Monument A.
Removed all but one of the cites, and shuffled some of the info down into the Olmec civilization section; I also put the bit about Stirling's early excavations into the Tres Zapotes section. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
actually I just read today Stirling's own interesting account, online at the start of the Olmec conference PDF here, pages 2 & 5, which says he began his excavations at the Tres Zapotes head, but following up an interest already several years old, begun by small jade pieces. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link - I'll have to read that! Simon Burchell (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Olmec civilization" should probably have {{main|Olmec}} just under the section heading.
Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a little more detail about the purpose of these heads is needed. I'm well aware that the Olmec had no writing and are therefore very mysterious, but not all readers will know that, so it's probably worth mentioning in the "Olmec civilization" section. And in "Characteristics", it says scholars now think the heads represent rulers, but not why they think that.
I'm afraid I can't find any explanation of why they are believed to represent rulers, just statements to that effect in the sources. I've added a little to the Olmec civilization section, about the emerging evidence for Olmec writing. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…José Melgar y Serrano described a colossal head as having "Ethiopian" features and African origin speculation resurfaced in 1960…" Maybe change "African origin speculation" to "speculations that the Olmec had African origins", or something like that. I know that's long for a phrase with a link, but the meaning is clearer that way.
Done, as suggested. I've linked Olmec alternative origin speculations to the "African origins" bit. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discovery of Tres Zapotes Monument Q is a little unclear. Was it discovered when the machinery stuck it, or at an uncertain point before that? If the former, how do they know how it was found but not when it was found?
The precise date isn't known because it was not discovered and recorded by archaeologists. Sometime , estimated to be in the 1940s, the hill was being cleared for agricultural reasons and machinery struck the head. This was probably remembered by locals and reported to archaeologists later. I've gone back to my sources and there isn't much else I can put in - the discovery of the head was poorly documented. I'll add another sentence about when it was first described in print, but that's about it. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph on La Cobata (stating that it may be different from other heads just because it's unfinished) is awkward, and the point it makes is rather redundant with the earlier sentence about Norman Hammond's objection to the late dating of the head. Maybe move the second to last sentence, saying the head might depict a deceased ruler, before the sentence about Hammond and his unfinished-head argument.
I've made the changes as suggested. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't suppose you can find any information on why members of an evangelical church would try to carry out a Pre-columbian ritual. But it does leave one wondering, so if you know why, it might be worth including. A. Parrot (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found that particularly bizarre myself, but I haven't been able to find an interview with the vandals anywhere. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've responded to each of your points. Many thanks for the review. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the support! Simon Burchell (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Believe we're still waiting for an image check here. On this subject, the side-by-side images in the first section of the main body cause, on my screen, severe sandwiching of text between themselves and the second of the lead images. Any reason the side-by-side ones should't be one above the other, using the vertical multiple image parameter? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched the images to vertical, as suggested. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is very strong, have been watching the progress since the GA, leaning support. One thing, the opening lead sentence does not work for me -

Olmec colossal heads are a distinctive feature of the Olmec civilization of ancient Mesoamerica,[1] and the discovery of a colossal head at Tres Zapotes in the 19th century spurred the first archaeological investigations of Olmec culture by Matthew Stirling in 1938. I ve re-arranged slightly, but am not married to the edit. Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • File:Mexico.Tab.OlmecHead.01.jpg free,
  • File:La_Venta_Monument_4.JPG released by holder to GNU
  • File:Olmec mask 802.jpg released by holder to GNU
  • File:Olmec - Infantile Figure - Walters 20092064 - Three Quarter.jpg permission via OTRS
  • File:Cabeza Colosal nº1 del Museo Xalapa.jpg GNU
  • File:La Venta Colossal Head 3.jpg PD, rights waved
  • File:Olmec Heartland Overview v2.svg GNU
  • File:San Lorenzo Colossal Head 2, from Veracruz.jpg CC2.0 generic (not sure what that means) uploaded by nominator unclear as to copyright owner
  • File:San Lorenzo Monument 3 crop.jpg CC2.0 generic ex flicker
  • File:San Lorenzo Monument 4 crop.jpg CC2.0 generic ex flickr
  • File:Tres Zapotes Monument A.jpg GNU
  • File:Takalik Abaj Olmec sculpture 1.JPG OTRS.
All ok, 'cept three ex flicker Im unsure about, not being an images guy. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Olmec_colossal_heads/archive1&oldid=507114856"