Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spanish conquest of Petén/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose 10:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Spanish conquest of Petén[edit]

Spanish conquest of Petén (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 17th century while Europe was undergoing a scientific revolution, deep in the forests of Central America the last independent Maya kingdoms were still practising human sacrifice upon pyramid temples, as their ancestors had done for many hundreds of years. They had been aware of the encroaching Spanish Empire since 1525, when Hernán Cortés had made an epic journey across their territory. Initial Spanish attempts against them had met with disaster in the early 1620s and the independent Maya, led by the warlike Itza, resolutely resisted Spanish overtures. The Spanish themselves were engaged in a complicated competition to be the first to bring the Itza within the Empire, with competing military expeditions from mutually independent colonial authorities in Yucatán and Guatemala, vying with attempts at religious conversion by both the Dominican and Franciscan Orders. With the Itza alternating between diplomatic overtures and the ambushing of Spanish expeditions, soldiers and friars alike fell beneath the spears and sacrificial knives of the Maya, although the outcome was perhaps inevitable…

This article has passed GA and MilHist A-Class Review, and I believe it is ready for the final push to FA… Simon Burchell (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC, own work, PD-age). Sources and authors provided.

  • Tweaked a few captions per MOS:CAPTION and 1 license tag, but nothing really critical. - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for checking (and correcting) those - all the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey[edit]

Support Leaning support. A remarkably well-written and -researched article. The only expertise I have on the subject is what I've gained from reading the article, but it at least gives the impression of being thoroughly comprehensive.

  • "on the west by the Mexican state of Chiapas with the border largely following the course of the Usumacinta River": I can't say I totally understand why it's an issue, but you may want to read WP:PLUSING.
  • I've rephrased it - I hope the rephrasing isn't more clumsy than using -ing! Simon Burchell (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A single soldier arriving in Mexico in 1520 was carrying smallpox and thus initiated the devastating plagues that swept through the native populations of the Americas.": would this not be better in the "Impact of Old World diseases" section that follows?
  • "three 1-pound (0.45 kg) caliber light cannons": I don't know which brand of Commonwealth spelling this is written in, but I assume this should be "calibre".
  • "dark wood of a flowering tree, (Apoplanesia paniculata), called chulul by the Maya": I'm not sure the commas are necessary around the parantheses—at least, they look weird to me.
  • "The bows used by the Maya were almost as high as a man": would "were described as almost as high as a man" be more accurate?
  • I'll check my sources - it may be that some weaponry was collected and survived. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a short jacket that was filled with rock salt": could we get a reason why?
  • The implication is that it is the shock absorbing quality of rock salt, something like with sandbags. I'll see if I can dig out something explicit but I rather doubt it - this is one of those things that is covered in passing in the sources but not covered in any detail. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of "Legacy of the conquest", San José is mentioned twice, and linked the second time. If they are the same San José, then the first one should be linked.
  • I must have delinked the wrong one with AWB. I've moved it to the first instance. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff to think about, but won't affect whether the article passes FAC[edit]

If you disagree with any of the following, just ignore it.

  • Would "Historical sources" not be better towards the end of the article? It doesn't seem to me like one of the first things a reader would want to read about.
  • A reviewer mentioned the same for the A-Class review over at MilHist; I don't have strong feelings about it, so will move it. The main reason I kept it near the beginning was to keep the format similar to Spanish conquest of Guatemala article. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For redlinks that have articles in other languages, you can use {{ill}}, so that for example you can do {{ill|es|Diego de Cardenas|Diego de Cárdenas (gobernador de Yucatán)}}, which produces Diego de Cardenas [es]—the great thing is, when someone creates the English-language article, the interwiki link disappears automagically.
  • Hmm. I like the idea but I don't like the (es) interrupting the reading flow - the average reader wouldn't have a clue what it meant. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been told that the "|indent=yes" with {{Refbegin}} does funny things with some browsers. If you switched to the asterisk style you'd marginally improve accessibility.
  • I like the indent because it allows the first line of the ref, with author etc. to stand out, making it easier to find a particular reference quickly. It seems to display OK in IE, Firefox and Chrome, and doesn't look too bad on my painfully slow early version Kindle. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review - I hope I can work through the points you raised reasonably quickly. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I noted has been dealt with. An impressive level of quality, especially on such a long article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment will read through and jot queries below - have limited familiarity but did visit Tikal 20 years ago....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Casliber, I look forward to your comments - Tikal is certainly a wonderful place to visit! It is somewhat peripheral to the events here - but I should think you went to Flores - one-time Nojpetén, the focus of the conquest... Simon Burchell (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did indeed....now onto the prose. Looking good at first glance but I wonder if some words are repeated and can be folded in somehow. I read this on my smartphone yesterday - will look again and see if I can find some examples. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Petén was not politically unified and was divided into a number of different Maya polities engaged in a complex web of alliances and enmities. - isn't stating it is "not politically unified" redundant given you then clarify its political status?
The geography section has several short sentences separated by semicolons - I massaged this a little as I felt the prose was a tad stilted, but no real alternatives jump out for the rest - this is not particularly actionable (i.e. not a deal-breaker) but if you can massage this section at all it'd be helpful.
  • I've had a go at this. Unfortunately, by its nature this section is rather dry, relating a lot of figures about temperature and rainfall. It may read slightly better now (or it may not...) Simon Burchell (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree -maybe it reads better, or maybe I'm in a better mood...not sure.....anyway, it seems a little better now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the Petén before the conquest would be better if presented in chronological order methinks.
A significant Maya presence remained in Petén into the - "in Peten" possibly redundant here (?)
early Spanish reports suggest that sizeable Maya populations existed in Petén - "sizeable" a bit nebulous - some further accuracy would be helpful but not actionable if the source doesn't have any further clarification I guess
  • I've been looking all over the place for a figure, and can't find even a rough estimate. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough - we can only go on sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second polity in importance was that... - odd phrasing. Can we rephrase this?
  • I've had a go - now reads The Kowoj were the second polity in importance, and they were hostile towards their Itza neighbours. The Kowoj were located to the east of the Itza, around the eastern lakes: Lake Salpetén, Lake Macanché, Lake Yaxhá and Lake Sacnab.
It's the "second polity in importance" that sounds odd to me - maybe if it were just "Second in importance...."
To the west of the Kejache was Acalan - "of the Kejache" redundant here (?)
The European diseases that ravaged the populations of the Americas - reword to avoid repetition of words in the previous sentence.

More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, just passing through, no special hurry but are you still planning to comment further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry - spare time has been lacking. Anyway, back to it.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.... with both meeting somewhere in Ch'ol territory; the plan was later modified - errr, modified to what? the last sentence is very abrupt and leaves me hanging..
  • I've clarified this - it is covered in more detail later in the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the beginning of March 1695, Ursúa ordered captain Alonso García de Paredes to explore the road south from Campeche city - is this the same road as in the preceding sentence? If so, I'd say "this road" as this bit is otherwise repetitive.
By 1708 only about 6,000 Maya remained in central Petén, compared to ten times that number in 1697 - I'd lose the second clause as we've established the 60,000 at the beginning of the para.

support Otherwise a good read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the review and, of course, the support. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in how you format citations to footnotes
  • Some cites are missing spaces before pages
  • Missing bibliographic info for Smith, Chocón and Corzo
  • Dates for MacQuarrie differ between footnotes and References
  • Which sources does "Rice et al 2009" refer to?
Comments from Quadell

This is a fascinating article. It is extremely thorough and meticulously sourced. I find no major problems; I can only offer these paltry issues and suggestions for your consideration.

  • Thanks for taking the time to review this lengthy article. I hope to work through your comments fairly rapidly. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A word from a grammar martinet: I am delighted to see that this article uses its own distinct style which it maintains throughout. For instance, commas are omitted after prepositional phrases that introduce sentences (e.g. "In the first half of the 16th century Spain established..."); while unusual, this is perfectly acceptible. There is one stylistic choice, however, that I feel crosses the line into being an error. When two independent clauses are joined with a coordinating conjunction ("and" or "but"), most style guides insist a comma must precede the coordinating conjunction. So note this change in the lead, and these changes in a later section. Please check for this throughout. (Note though that this does not apply when one clause is dependent; it is fully acceptable to omit the comma in "Petén was not politically unified and was divided into...", since the two predicates share a subject.)
  • I've put in some commas but I'm afraid I'm suffering from "comma blindness" - I'm far from sure that they're going in the right places and am sure I must be missing some. If you point out the offending sentences, I'll be happy to insert commas - but my grammar isn't strong enough to confidently find them. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the rest. – Quadell (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for that - it was giving me a headache! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date range given in the infobox is "1525 – c. 1697". I know date ranges for such long conflicts are often quite fuzzy, but is 1525 the best year to start with? The "Background to the conquest" section covers a time period up to the early 17th century. The lead sentence says that the conquest of Petén was "the last stage of the conquest of Guatemala", but the conquest of Guatemala didn't start until 1524. I just want the summary dates to be as accurate as the detailed facts will allow.
  • No Spanish expedition is recorded as entering Petén before Hernán Cortés in 1525, and the last significant battle took place in 1697, the year commonly regarded as the final conquest date of the Maya. The 1524 date refers to the conquest of highland Guatemala, outside of the region directly upon which this article concentrates; I think putting in the start year as 1524 would be misleading and the dates as given accurately reflect the approximate duration of the conflict. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I agree that 1524 would be too early. My concern is that 1525 might be to early as well. I'll explain.
    If someone tries to get a sense of the conflict from just the lead section and the infobox (as many casual readers will), it might be confusing for them to see the following: the entire conquest of Guatemala lasted 173 years, starting in 1524, and the last stage of that conflict (Petén) started in 1525, just a year into it. If the reader looks further down the article, she will see that the prelude to the Petén conflict is described as starting in 1527, two years after the conflict supposedly began. (The prelude section goes on to cover events well into the 17th century.) A reader would expect the final phase of the conquest of Guatemala to occur later in that general conflict, and she would further expect for the prelude to the Petén conflict to precede the conflict itself. See where the confusion comes from?
    Now I know history is messy. Sometimes the last phase to finish is not the last phase to start. Sometimes the causes and prelude to a conflict will continue well into the conflict itself. But we have to pick years for the infobox and "Spanish colonial campaigns" template, and those years should seem to roughly correspond to what's described in the text. – Quadell (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose it's just a matter of picking a date. I admit Cortés didn't enter Petén with the intention of bringing it into the Empire in 1525. Part of the problem is that different colonial authorities made attempts over different territories from different regions. The first serious attempt was in 1618, when the Franciscans tried to achieve peaceful submission. Would you be happier with that date in the infobox? Simon Burchell (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency's sake, I believe either one of two changes needs to be made. (1) The infobox and "Spanish colonial campaigns" template could be changed to reflect a timeframe described in the text, such as beginning in 1618; or (2) the text and section names in the article could be modified to reflect a conquest that begins in 1525, with a prelude that precedes it. Either solution would be acceptable. – Quadell (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the infobox/navbox dates to 1618, as suggested. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems internally and externally consistent now. – Quadell (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2nd sentence in the lead describes Petén physically as a "lowland plain" with "dense rainforest". The 4th sentence again describes Petén as "a densely forested lowland region". This seems redundent.
  • When you bundle citations, you usually use a full-stop to separate sources (although citation 98 uses a comma). This can sometimes be confusing for the reader, when encountering a citation such as "Jones 1998, pp. 129–130. ITMB 2000.", to know that two sources are used. Would you consider using linebreaks (<br />) between multiple sources, as in the second example at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Bundling citations? I believe in would improve readability. (See citation 254 in this version for an example of what this would look like. I can assist with this change, if you would like.)
  • When the notes are sourced, consider using separate citations (i.e. separate links to the "Citations" section from the note). This would make the sourcing easier to read and understand when there are multiple sources for a given note, or when the source is stated mid-note. Again, I enjoy doing cite-work, so I'm willing to help, if asked.
  • Done. Thanks for the suggestion - I didn't know it was possible! Simon Burchell (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe there should be a source for the existence of two Bacalars in Quintana Roo (note 1).
  • This is just a suggestion, but consider converting the "Historical sources" and "Archaeology" sections into subsections of a "Sources" supersection. ("Historical sources" might be renamed "Written accounts", if this is done.) My reasoning is simply that both sections fulfill a similar purpose.
  • I've only recently moved the "Historical sources" section to the end of the article, and it now seems to sit naturally with the archaeology section. I thought (but can't now find in the MOS) that subsections should not sit immediatly under a higher level section header without an introductory paragraph, which I think would be redundant here - so I haven't combined the sections. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly leading toward supporting, and I look forward to your replies. – Quadell (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the issue I raised have been swiftly and thoroughly dealt with. The only remaining issue I see is the confusion about the timeline for the prelude to the conflict and the conflict itself. – Quadell (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fascinating article, admirably thorough, and meticulously sourced. – Quadell (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Quadell - especially for having the patience to sort out those damn commas! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2013 (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/Spanish_conquest_of_Petén/archive1&oldid=1166569683"