Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Spanish conquest of Petén

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish conquest of Petén edit

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've done a lot of work on this lengthy article since it passed GA; looking forward I want to take it to FAC but it needs some fresh pairs of eyes - I've been staring at it for too long. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi Simon, good to see you back.
  • "east-west": Not an issue for A-class, but at FAC you'll need a dash, here and throughout.
  • "decimated": This means reduced by a tenth, reduced by a lot, or annihilated, depending on who you ask ... so, not the most useful word.
  • "This was a part of a three-pronged attack against the independent inhabitants of Petén and neighbouring Chiapas, a second group joined up with Barrios Leal having departed from Huehuetenango.": I'm not sure what that means.
  • A coordinated attack was launched from three points of departure, which I've attempted to summarise here. I've tweaked the sentence but I'm not if I've clarified it sufficiently. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Petén" (x2), "the south-western Petén": Did you mean to include the "the"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an artefact of translation from Spanish - the definite article is usually dropped, I'll remove all instances. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Again Kan Ek' welcomed them in a friendly manner; however the Maya priesthood were hostile": I'd prefer "... manner, but this time the Maya ...", but if you want to keep "however", it needs a comma after. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this... Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure thing. "Itza-Kowoj": dash
  • "president Jacinto de Barrios Leal": President (usually, when it comes before the name)
  • "The Dominicans took advantage of the delay in order to proselytise": ... ... delay to proselytise
  • "6,000 Maya": Reviewers may ask you at FAC to be consistent in using or dropping the comma.
  • "Díaz agreed with the Dominicans, two muleteers have already died from sickness and recongnising that the size of his expedition was not sufficient for a full confrontation with the Itza nation.": ?
  • "considered a considerable": reword
  • "Bonifacio Us was captain of the Tek'ax company, Diego Uk was that of the Oxk'utzkab' company.": comma splice
  • FAC reviewers sometimes criticize paragraphs for being as long as some of the ones in this article.
  • Noted - I'll have a proper read and break up unduly long paragraphs. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Avendaño continued south along the course of the new road, finding increasing evidence of Spanish military activity, with the rounding up of local inhabitants and raiding of fields and orchards for provisions.": Who's doing the rounding up and raiding?
  • "The Franciscan": The Franciscans, maybe
  • "The Franciscan set upon a different plan; they would follow the road back north to Jop'elch'en near Campeche city and attempt to reach the Itza via Tipuj; in the event the secular clergy prevented the Franciscans from attempting the latter route.": Rewrite without "in the event", which means "in case" (or sometimes "during the event") in AmEng. Also, it forces readers to backtrack if you lay out a plan, then later say that they didn't follow it after all; it's better to say that they were prevented right up front.
  • "to the provincial": to the provincial superior?
  • "Pak'ek'em was sufficiently far from the new Spanish road that it was free from military interference and the friars oversaw the building of a church in what was the largest mission town in Kejache territory and a second church was built at B'atkab' to attend to over 100 K'ejache refugees who had been gathered there under the stewardship of friar Diego de Echevarría; a further church was established at Tzuktok', overseen by Diego de Salas.": long, winding sentence
  • "December 1695-January 1696": needs a spaced dash
  • "friars Antonio Pérez de San Román, Joseph de Jesús María, Deigo de Echevarría and lay brother Lucas de San Francisco": nonparallel series; expands to "friars ... lay brother Lucas de San Francisco"
  • "[W, X, Y, and Z,] various of whom he collected on his journey ...": "... some of whom" (if the sources don't know which ones), or "W, X, and Y, whom he collected on his journey ..., and Z" (if the sources know this applies to W, X and Y).
  • "exposed deep divisions among the Itza and the apparent treachery of the Itza king": It's too easy to read that as ... what it sounds like, then the readers have to backtrack.
  • "rumours of battle and Spanish advance": rumours of battle and a Spanish advance
  • "a path theat lead": a path that led?
  • "García despatched two Kejache scouts to the lakeshore to discover Avendaño's whereabouts, at the same time Avendaño's Kejache guides were returning to Chuntuki from Nojpetén with news of Avendaño's flight." comma splice, unless you mean an "as" after "time".
  • "without success - most of the natives had fled": dash
  • "first came AjChan who had already met him in Mérida, he was followed by Chamach Xulu, the ruler of the Yalain.": comma splice
  • "a large amount of canoes": a large number of canoes
  • Again, many thanks for the review, the article sorely needed it. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
    • Most of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
    • Images appear to either be PD or licenced and seem to have the req'd information. Captions look ok to me.
    • The Earwig Tool didn't work so accepting on good faith that there are no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
    • A few links per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • Hernán Cortés
      • Oxk'utzkab'
      • cacique
      • Rabinal
    • Have you considered adding an infobox? It might assist the readers to understand key facts about the events (suggestion only).
    • The lead looks a little unbalanced, with two smallish paragraphs and the third one being quite large. Suggest splitting the last para (seems a natural break at the sentence beginning: "In 1628 the Manche Ch'ol of the south..."
    • The issue of long paragraphs is replicated throughout the article, so recommend splitting these at natural points.
    • Generally don't need to have cites in the lead of an article, as that information should appear in the body of the text (where it is already cited) - see WP:LEADCITE. If this is the case then you may be able to ditch the citation here.
      • The info wasn't included in the text body, but it is now and I've removed the cite. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article has a lot of headings / sections, some of which are really short. Wonder if some could be merged (for instance the two on weaponry - one Spanish and one native, could easily become one 2nd level heading with 3rd level subheadings, perhaps also geography and climate)
      • I've dropped the Climate section to a subsection of Geography and Native Weaponry to a subsection of Weaponry. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Q'eqchi' of Verapaz had long had close ties...", consider more simply "The Q'eqchi' of Verapaz long had close ties..."
    • Missing word here I think: "AjChan left Mérida with his companions and a Spanish escort the middle of January 1696...", consider "AjChan left Mérida with his companions and a Spanish escort in the middle of January 1696..."
    • Figures here: "...consisted of 2 Spanish soldiers, 2 archers and 2 muleteers from Verapaz, with 2 Ch'ol-speaking native interpreters...", 2 should be presented as "two" per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Repetitive language here: "On 11 May Ursúa ordered García to begin a second expedition southwards and allotted him 100 salaried Maya to accompany him." (him twice) Consider instead: "On 11 May Ursúa ordered García to begin a second expedition southwards and was allotted 100 salaried Maya to accompany him."
    • Seems like a tautology: "On 5 January they caught up with and passed the main bulk of the army at B'atkab'..." ("main bulk"). Perhaps reword?
    • "The battered expedition set up a base camp 9 leagues north of Mopan." 9 → nine per WP:MOSNUM.
    • "The Itza killed a total of 87 expedition members, including 50 soldiers, 2 Dominicans..." 2 → two per WP:MOSNUM.
    • "The encampment at Ch'ich' was left defended by 25 Spanish soldiers, 3 Maya musketeers..." 3 → three per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Some of the works listed in the reference section need to use title case.
      • I believe that in all cases I followed the case as published. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a style guide I'm almost certain the MOS has precedence over the case adopted by a publisher (although don't seem to be able to find a policy link for that). Examples of works needing title case as fol:
          • Coe, Michael D. (1999). The Maya. Ancient peoples and places series
          • Hofling, Charles Andrew (2009). "The Linguistic Context of the Kowoj". In Prudence M. Rice and Don S. Rice (eds.). The Kowoj: identity, migration, and geopolitics in late postclassic Petén
          • Jones, Grant D. (2009). "The Kowoj in Ethnohistorical Perspective". In Prudence M. Rice and Don S. Rice (eds.). The Kowoj: identity, migration, and geopolitics in late postclassic Petén, Guatemala
          • Pugh, Timothy W. (2009). "Residential and Domestic Contexts at Zacpetén". In Prudence M. Rice and Don S. Rice (eds.). The Kowoj: identity, migration, and geopolitics in late postclassic Petén, Guatemala
          • There are others (mostly those using the Rice and Rice book).
      • I've done these, but it occurs to me that in "The Kowoj: identity, migration, and geopolitics in late postclassic Petén, Guatemala" the title of the book is The Kowoj - the rest is a subtitle identity, migration, and geopolitics in late postclassic Petén, Guatemala and subtitles don't usually use title case. Note that Spanish obeys different rules for capitalisation - first word and proper nouns only. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree that title case is not required for the Spanish titles - don't think I suggested it did though did I? Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall this is quite a well written article in my opinion. I'm well and truly out of my depth in reviewing an article about this period in history but I think this is fairly close to meeting the ACR criteria if the issues listed above can be worked through. Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review - I'll work through this list over the next few days. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes made so far look quite good, will check back a bit later to see how you go with the rest. Anotherclown (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further note on ref format. Generally constructions like "Ltd" shouldn't be used per Template:Cite book. Suggest removal here:
  • ITMB Publishing Ltd. (1998). Guatemala (Map). 1:500000. International Travel Maps (3rd ed.). ISBN 0-921463-64-2. OCLC 421536238.
  • ITMB Publishing Ltd. (2000). México South East (Map). 1:1000000. International Travel Maps (2nd ed.). ISBN 0921463227. OCLC 46660694. Anotherclown (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I have had a look over it and made a few changes (mainly to prevent the infobox from "stretching" to be too big as it shouldn't be any wider than the campaign box AFAIK). Also sorted your reference list alphabetically. Of cse pls revert if you disagree with these changes although I think they are improvements at least. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I'm not sounding too picking but I ran the citation check tool over the article and have found a few recently introduced errors with reference consolidation:
    • Jones 2000, p. 364. (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • Jones 2009, p. 60. (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • Jones 2009, p. 59. (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • Jones00p364 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Jones09p60 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Jones09p59 (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • A few of the references lack either an ISBN or OCLC - as you provide these for the rest can they be added for consistency (also of considerable benefit to readers doing their own research).
  • If these can be fixed I think those are the last of my points. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for all of this. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problems, thanks for your patience. This is a very good article in my opinion and clearly a large amount of work (not to mention expertise) has gone into it. I've added my support now and wish you all the best with taking it further. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks again for a detailed review. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim I don't know anything about this, so don't give too much weight to my minor nitpicks. It's an impressive article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't think we linked countries now. Even if we do, it's inconsistent here— Guatemala is linked, Spain isn't, which seems to suggest a Eurocentric view of the world
  • While the modern countries aren't precisely equivalent to the places discussed in the article, geographic context helps so I've linked Spain. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to their padded cotton armour, the Spanish party received no injuries from the skirmish—I though the locals wore cotton armour and the Spaniards had steel?
  • The Spanish found that steel was extremely uncomfortable in the tropics, and the indigenous armour was more comfortable while still giving reasonable protection against native weapons, being cotton packed with salt. I know I covered this in Spanish conquest of Guatemala so I'll adapt it and drop it in the Spanish weaponry section. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dropped in a bit about the Spanish adapting Maya armour - in the Weaponry section. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the full capitalisation of authors MoS? I really don't like this, but I don't know that it's actually wrong.
  • Author capitalisation has been used for a long time in WikiProject Mesoamerica articles, and I think it makes the name of the author stand out amongst all the other stuff in the references. I've had a number of FAs pass without this having to be pulled but I'm not wedded to it. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jared Diamond thought the constant pre-conquest warfare in this region was due to the fact that food supply problems meant that no leader could establish supremacy in the way that the Incas or Aztecs had done, making tribal conflict endemic. He also thought that deforestation had exacerbated the food problems, so the numbers in lowland areas, even before smallpox, were only 1% of those in the eighth century. Worth mentioning?
  • The classic Maya collapse was complex, and its causes are disputed and ultimately beyond the scope of this article - I've linked to Classic Maya collapse already and, while I'm not happy with that article, it would be the correct place to discuss this. You're right, of course, that the Contact Period population was much less than the Classic Period population, and I'll see if I can find a source that mentions this. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with your responses, so I've changed to support above. I'll leave the population with you, I don't imagine that success at FAC will depend on that! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - This is really a magisterial work on the subject, and I am entirely impressed by the effort that's gone into it. I just have a few comments, below. Cdtew (talk)

  • The lede is well done, but the sentences describing geography in the first paragraph ("Petén is a wide lowland plain...") seem to clutter that paragraph up. Understanding the geography is obviously important, but I feel like that could wait until the body.
  • I've re-ordered that paragraph, moving all the geography right to the beginning. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the lede seems out of order. 1628, then 1633, then 1622, then 1695? I think, since there appears to be no thematic ordering, simple chronological order would help.
  • The section on "Historical sources" seems a little premature. I feel like it disrupts the flow of the article. You've just introduced the setting, are about to introduce the native actors, and betwixt is a wide-ranging summary of mostly Spanish sources. Perhaps moving it to the end of the article would re-establish the flow.
  • I see the rationale for it, I just think it's a little out of place in both. Think of it this way - you're telling the story, but before you tell the story, you tell where the story came from. It seems to me that it would improve readability to tell the 200 year story, and then tell how the story is preserved. I's sort of like how sections concerning "depictions in pop culture" would generally appear after the article itself. This is just a preference thing, so it's up to you. Cdtew (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second polity in importance was that of their hostile neighbors" -> perhaps "was that of the Kowoj, hostile neighbors to the Itza", or something in that fashion. "their" is a little vague.
  • You list Lakandon Ch'ol before Manche Ch'ol, yet only "Ch'ol" in the latter is wikilinked. Is there a reason for that? Shouldn't the first mention of the Ch'ol be wikilinked?
  • You added some about the Spanish use of cotton armor, but in the "Weaponry and armour" segment, you say "Quilted cotton armour, although still uncomfortably hot, was flexible and weighed much less." without describing what the Spanish were discarding in favor of cotton armor. You may as well go and discuss the morion, rodela, breastplate, etc.
  • It seems redundant to discuss equipment that wasn't used in any detail, and the mention of it replacing steel armour gives a general idea. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let me address it this way - a reader who is unaware of conquistadors may not know that the archetypical one wore a steel breastplate, morion, etc.; in reading the article, the first mention of it they'll see is that in Peten they preferred the cotton/salt armor over steel. Maybe just rephrasing it to make it clear that they typically used steel, but in this instance preferred the cotton/salt armor. Cdtew (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Spanish were aware that the Itza Maya had become the centre of anti-Spanish resistance and engaged in a policy" - the Spanish may have been aware of it, but the reader isn't until now. Is there any way to shoehorn in statements about Itza resistance to the Spanish?
  • In fact, the "Strategies and tactics" section doesn't sit well with me; in reality, you're not discussing strategies as much as you're discussing various plans and schemes put into action at different points in time. It seems these facts would be better slotted in chronologically throughout the article, but that may be me thinking too linearly. It's just sort of disorienting -- you've set up the prologue, and we expect to be led into first contact, but instead have a section that takes us 170 years into the future, and then back to Cortes.
  • This section gives a background to the various expeditions launched over the course of almost two centuries. I think this is an important section, because it covers points that don't apply to individual expeditions, as well explaining the role of the church etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His aim was to subdue the rebellious Cristóbal de Olid, whom he had sent to conquer Honduras, but Cristóbal de Olid had set himself up independently on his arrival in that territory" - perhaps clearer as "whom he had sent to conquer Honduras; de Olid had, however, set himself up..."
  • "with Francisco Morán as their ecclesiastical head." - who was Moran? A friar? A Dominican? A bishop?
  • "may have instigated the Manche rebellion of Lent 1633" - what was that? Not being familiar with this story, most readers (myself included) will scratch their heads at this one. If it's not a particularly important rebellion, just say "may have instigated a Manche rebellion during Lent in 1633"
    Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "President Jacinto de Barrios Leal" - it seems like President here could be confused for the modern-day President of Guatemala. I don't know how much of the Real Audiencia structure you need to get into, but if there's a way to distinguish this, it could be helpful.
  • I don't have much information upon the administrative structure of colonial guatemala, but I've rephrased the sentence to make clear that Barrios was president of the Audiencia. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stopping at "Avendaño's entry from Yucatán, June 1695" to get some sleep, but will pick up where I left off tomorrow. Cdtew (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for looking at this, I hope to work through this over the next few days. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to more comments:

  • "Avendaño returned to Tzuktok' and reconsidered his plans; the Franciscans were short of supplies, the forcefully congregated Maya that they were charged with converting were disappearing back into the forest daily, the Spanish officers ignored the concerns of the friars and García was abducting local Maya women and children to be taken back to his encomienda for forced labour." - this sentence is really long and convoluted, and is a bit of a run-on. Perhaps breaking it up would improve readability.
  • You use leagues a lot as forms of measurement; I understand this was a common form of distance measurement at the time and in Central America in general, but is there any way you could approximate some of these distances based on your sources? If not, that's understandable, based on my knowledge of Spanish expedition sources.
  • As I understand it, a league was how far could be travelled in an hour - so the actual linear distance of a league varied enormously depending upon the difficulty of the local terrain. This makes it very difficult to convert to linear measurements, based upon approximate locations reported in Spanish expedition reports. However, I will see what I can do... Simon Burchell (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Aftermath, "and delegated its control to military officers who he did very little to support" - shouldn't this be "whom"? Or it may be clearer as "to whom he gave very little support". Also, what sort of support? Did he not help them with supplies/munitions/etc.? Or did he not care for them and didn't support them in the sense that he later turned lukewarm on them?

I've read through the remainder of the article, and can find nothing of substance that I think would bar this from A-Class. After you've addressed the above, I'm happy to support! Cdtew (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Spanish_conquest_of_Petén&oldid=1046372300"