Talk:Spanish conquest of Petén/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 4 January 2013 (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 needing clarification

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   a few spots needing a bit of work

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General comments:

• Lead:
  • I think we might be a bit skimpy on the lead here ... it feels a bit short compared to the length of the article. One suggestion is to add a few dates to the lead - there is only the one single date in the lead that anchors the information chronologically. When did the conquest start? When did the last bits end?

I've added a para to the lead with a historical overview. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Who were the peoples that were conquered? Mayan peoples or something else?

The second para of the lead mentions that the inhabitants were Maya, but it was probably not clear that all the groups were Maya, I've added "Maya" so "number of different polities engaged in a complex web..." now reads "number of different Maya polities engaged in a complex web..." Simon Burchell (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Geography:
  • Is there a main article we can link to at the top?

I've linked to Geography of Guatemala, but to be honest there's more information here than there... Simon Burchell (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Background:
  • You say that Columbus discovered for the Kingdom of Castile and Leon - but then later use "Spanish Crown" - suggest you define what you mean by Spanish Crown for the historical numbskulls out there.
  • Also - do we have a "main" article you can link to for folks to get more details on this section?
  • suggest instead of "who answered to the king of Spain via the Council of the Indies" that you say "who answered to the Spanish Crown via the Council of the Indies" since that is the formulation you used earlier.
• Strategies:
  • What do Dominican missionaries have to do with conquest?? The non-informed reader (i.e. most of our readers) will have no clue why this jump in subjects. Needs more background.
• Cortes:
  • "impressed that he pledged to worship the Cross and to destroy his idols" ... can we be a bit less POV with "Cross"? Maybe "pledged to worship Jesus Christ"?

I don't really see the POV here, Cortes' visit was very brief, and I think it more likely that the Maya would have worshipped a physical object than an abstract concept (they liked to make sacrifices before an object), but have switched "Cross" for "Christ". Simon Burchell (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the capitilzation of "Cross" - it implies that this is the "true" belief - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've switched it back to "cross". Simon Burchell (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "The Spanish did not officially contact the Itza again until the arrival of Franciscan priests in 1618, when Cortés' cross was said to still be standing at Nojpetén.[52] From the lake, Cortés continued south along the western slopes..." very jarring change of chronology - can we move the bit about not contacting again to either the previous paragraph or to an explanatory footnote?
• Conquest:
  • Oh, ouch .. POV in wikipedia voice "was protected by Satan from the light of Christ in the form of the Spanish Empire and the Roman Catholic Church." Yes, the Spanish thought that, but it really reads as though this is Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps a quote or toning down the pov?

Well it does say "the Spanish...viewed them as ignorant savages whose kingdom was protected by Satan from the light of Christ in the form of...", which I think makes clear that this was an opinion of the Spanish, and isn't Wikipedia's interpretation. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the "light of Christ" part that is especially glaring - suggest rephrasing that to something like "protected by Satan from the Christianizing efforts of the Spanish Empire."? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK - duly rephrased. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Early 17th:
  • Why do we suddenly link Yucatan here instead of all the previous times it's been used?

Must be an artefact of expansion, I've moved it. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "the Aj Kan Ek'" or "the current Kan Ek'"? or "Kan Ek'"? The last one implies a personal name, but it seems to have been a title, in which case "the Kan Ek'" would be better?

This one is always a headache, since it was both a name and a title; it was a name that could only be borne by the king. The elements of the name were inherited from mother's and father's lineages, and all kings of the Itza were kings by right of descendance from both royal lineages and therefore had the same name. This is explained in more detail in the Kan Ek' article, and Aj Kan Ek', Ajaw Aj Kan Ek', Kan Ek' etc. would all be correct. In a very general sense, it's like refering to Mr John Smith, John Smith or Mr Smith (not an exact parrallel but it gives you the idea). Simon Burchell (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Spanish:
  • "with 20 Spanish soldiers and 80 Mayas from Yucatán" is an ARMY??? I think "force" or "expedition" would be a better description.
• 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.

Many thanks for the review, I agree with you on most points but there are a few unstruck points above, with my comments. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding, I think everything is dealt with now... Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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.