Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quiriguá/archive1 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 SandyGeorgia 22:43, 30 August 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a fairly complete treatment of the subject, passed GA some time ago and is stable. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added Alt text describing each image. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks!) but needs some work:
  • Two images are missing alt text. Please see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right corner of this review article.
  • Some of its text duplicates what's in the captions and should be removed (please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 4). This includes "Stela D", "Map of the Southern Maya Area", "Stela D", "king K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat", "Zoomorph B", "Guatemalan 10 centavo coin", "The Great Plaza", "The Ballcourt Plaza", "Stela E", "Detail of Zoomorph B".
  • Some of its text contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert merely by looking at the images, and should be moved to caption or removed. This includes "Maya" (when describing the stela), "Stela D" (the non-expert won't know it's Stela D), "stela from Quiriguá",
  • The alt text for the map doesn't give useful info about what the map tells the sighted reader. It basically just says "here is a map of the location" without saying where the location is, or how it's related to jade sources.
  • Technical details about how images were prepared are best omitted, so please remove "black and white photo showing". See WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 2.
Eubulides (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm getting to work on this. The two images without alt text are transcluded from templates, not quite sure how to put in the text...presumably on the template itself? Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. One of those images looks like it may be purely decorative, in which case a "|link=|" may be appropriate; see WP:ALT #When to specify. Eubulides (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I've put alt text in on the templates anyway - it can't hurt. I think I've dealt with all the other issues you've raised. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing all that; it's much better now. I noticed a few remaining problems, which are relatively minor. "Photo showing a", "Photo of", "Detail of", and "Detail" are all technical details about how the images were prepared and should be removed as per example 2 cited above. The "A tall, narrow monument..." phrase is punctuated as a sentence but doesn't appear to be a sentence. The alt text for File:Bonampak painting+contrast.jpg is repetitive and can easily be trimmed without losing info. Finally, the alt text for the purely decorative image File:Chichen Itza 2006 08 15.JPG doesn't hurt, but that image's link does hurt the visually impaired reader a bit, because the link causes a screen reader to waste time announcing that image's alt text and its link, thus slowing down what is supposed to be a navigation aid. So I think it'd help a bit to add "|link=" to that image; but it's not a big deal either way. Eubulides (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've sorted the remaining issues with the alt text... Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick work! It looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eubulides.Simon Burchell (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Generally linking seems low - vassal state, zoomorph, stela schist, glyph, relief, monumental sculpture, ceramic, mosaic, frieze anthropomorph & others all seem to be missing. Equally acropolis is linked right at the start, but this could usefully be repeated when it is described in more detail.
Should "acropolis" be captitalized? Only in Athens, imo, though "Acropolis Plaza" might be ok.
"See also", apart from the list, includes articles that are or ought to be linked in the text.
There are many pictureless stretches & the good Commons photos of Stelae P & E should be added.
On my screen the infobox hides a little text in the 2nd section, plus the infobox photo seems washed-out & less attractive than others, apart from being very tall. Personally I'd have dumped the infobox entirely.
Otherwise a nice article & nearly there. Best of luck with the alt text! Johnbod (talk)
I've switched the image in the Infobox, which I'm a little reluctant to remove because it contains more detailed info on the UNESCO status of the site that isn't included in the main article text and that I wouldn't wish to include there. The new image is shorter, I've also moved the maps down into the Location section. Hopefully these changes will resolve the problem of the edit link being covered.
I've put an extra image in (Stela B in the infobox), that I hadn't used previously since it was watermarked the last time I saw it on Commons, this has now been sorted. I am reluctant to use the remaining photo of Stela E on Commons since it is a photo of a replica in Mexico City and not the original monument in Guatemala. It seems there are a lot more attribution-license photos on flickr these days, so I'll import a couple and put them in.
I've also dropped an extra 30-odd wikilinks into the text, though I'll have another look at it later to see if it needs any more. Most of the See also links have now been worked into the text. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a couple of extra images, fixed the acropolis capitalisation throughout, and put in some more wikilinks. I think that covers everything you suggested, except removing the infobox. As I say, I have changed the image so I hope it looks better now.Simon Burchell (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've switched images for a close-up of one of the stelae.Simon Burchell (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • supportcomment. Hey Simon, superb job done here. Couple minor clarifications/suggestions:
    • One of the source works given in references section is the whole 6-volume set of Historia general de Guatemala, general ed. Jorge Luján Muñoz. Each vol has a different editor, & contains contributed chapters from numerous others. If some particular chapter or chapters (presumably from tomo 1, epoca precolumbina) has been consulted or can back up some of the statements here, I think we shld probably cite/ref the chapter(s) in the relevant volume(s) direct, rather than the whole set. Were there specific contribs in Historia general you'd used?
    • For internal consistency wld recommend spelling k'awil as k'awiil and yo'pat / yo'at as yopaat, even if Looper doesn't. That is, although sources may differ in how or whether they treat vowel dupl. and glottalisation, for the article itself one orthographical version of a term should be chosen. Maybe the different orthogs cld be briefly mentioned in a footnote, say. Alternatively you could follow Looper's or Martin & Grube's orthog, so long as it's consistent (you might have to then use redirect or pipe to link to some of our articles, eg K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat would be Yo'at or Yo'pat following Looper). This article's prob not the place to go into any niceties abt differences in opinion/interpretation of yo'at vs yopaat etc.
    • In the table listing the rulers, or maybe in the text somewhere, maybe you could add the known hel glyphs / numbered succession statements in the inscriptions, ie the dynastic sequence expression given for a ruler in the inscriptions.
    • But like I said, great work!--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CJ. The Historia general de Guatemala is a holdover from the old article before I started work on it, I don't have access to it and didn't consult it, and it isn't directly cited in the article text, so I can't give more specific details. If this is a problem, I'll simply remove it from the refs. I'll look at the other stuff as soon as I get a chance. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised you've already sorted the orthography - thanks for that.Simon Burchell (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added dynastic succession nos to the table. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK great, looks good, I added a little note just to explain those dynastic no's a little more. Re the historia general de Guatemala ref, I've removed it since it's a general work & don't think it contains anything on quirigua that you haven't already gotten from other sources.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment - I'll begin looking over it now and make any no-brainer straightforward prose improvements. Please revert me if I goof up and inadvertently change the meaning of any bits. I will post queries below. no deal-breakers left :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quiriguá is an ancient Maya archaeological site in... - I am not familiar with articles on the Maya, but should this not be "Mayan"? ok.
It's a widespread convention in Mayanist studies to use "Maya" as both a noun and adjective, reserving "Mayan" for the language. Not universal, but most contemporary sources tend to follow this distinction. We've elected to do so generally in our articles here on wiki as well, eg Maya civilization not Mayan civilization. The usage wld be consistent with that. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the site lies on the southern periphery of the Mesoamerican area and the population was at least bi-ethnic,[14] with ethnic Maya in a minority. - sorry, I got lost here, what was teh majority? mesoamerican? ok, one can only be as comprehensive as the sources. I am happy.
The majority would be other non-Maya and non-Mesoamerican groups inhabiting the region. Quiriguá lies on the very edge of the Mesoamerican region, with the cultures further east consisting of chiefdoms belonging to the less complex Intermediate Area. The specific ethnicity of the non-Maya majority is not discussed in the sources, perhaps because they had little or no influence upon the expressions of power of the Maya elite as represented by the architecture and sculpture of the site. I've added an extre line to the Population section to clarify this. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Evidence suggests that) Quiriguá and Copán may have been founded by elite colonists from the great city of Tikal as a part of its expansion into the southeastern border area of the Maya region.. - if we lose the bracketed bit, are you worried it sounds too dogmatic? I do note there is a "may" there - is it enough to show speculative tone of sentence?
With the bracketed section left in, it does give the statement some extra solidity, i.e. that this is not pure speculation on the part of the archaeologists. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, maybe the 'may' is redundant (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've ditched the may. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the late 5th century there are close correspondences.. - they write to each other? Sounds odd...
I'll switch this to parallels. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just double checking no meaning was lost with this edit
The implication from the sources is that this wasn't just any seasonal flood, that it was rather provoked by some disaster, perhaps a huricane or earthquake. I'm inclined to undo this one. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - good point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up, an interesting read and very nearly there. A couple of explanations or tweaks and you're home. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and for taking the time to go through this. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the population and economy section would be best after history? Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are both fairly short sections and I think they nicely set up the general context of the site before concentrating on the more detailed history of the site and its monuments etc. In my mind (at least) there is a logical progression to the sections. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support by Nev1 (talk · contribs)
  • "It is a medium sized site...": this isn't especially helpful, what does "medium-sized" mean? It would be more useful to state how large the site actually is (also, it should by hyphenated).
  • There's some inconsistent capitalisation: "...with the nearby Classic Period city..."; "During the Maya Classic period..."; "...the city during the Late Classic..."; "Tikal hiatus of the middle Classic".
  • The following extract is in passive voice: "the military victory by its king K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat". It's preferable to use the active voice. There are a few other occurrences.
  • Although there's a geohack link at the top of the page, it might be useful to add a coordinate template to the opening sentence of the location section (template:coord); although the coordinates themselves would be meaning less to most readers, the link it provides to geohack allows readers to access maps of the area and in a more prominent position than in the top right hand corner of the page it's more likely to get noticed. Just a thought, it's not a deal-breaker.
  • I played with this for a bit, but in the end thought that it just wasn't necessary to link coords in two places. They are available from a prominent position at the top of the page and in other articles where they have been placed in the body of the text, someone has soon come along and removed them. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The population section should mention trends in population if possible, that includes increase/decrease and change in ethnic make-up (although this would be difficult to measure and I doubt a source will be easy to find).
  • Very little information is available on changes in the ethnic make-up of the site. All my sources concentrate on the Maya elite. Population trends are also not available, with data only provided for the apogee of the site. I've added a couple of sentences detailing the population expansion after the rebellion, and the abandonment of the site. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, if the sources are limited there's nothing that can be done. The ethnicity would have been speculative at best anyway. I think the additional sentences generalising the population change is a good addition. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's something wrong with the following

The population density of the site has been estimated at 400 to 500 per square kilometer (1040 to 1300 per square mile) in the centre of the city during the Late Classic[15] with an estimated total population of 1200–1600;[16] surveys have revealed an average of 130 structures per square kilometer (338 per square mile) at the site, compared with 1449 structures/km² (3767 per square mile) in central Copán.[17] The low population density indicates that Quirigua served as the focus for a dispersed rural population.[9]

That would make the average population of of the houses in Copan about 1, which makes me think that either the density of structures has been misread, or the source has not differentiated between structures of different phases; if the latter is the case, the comparison is not useful.
Ignore my bad maths, I got my wires crossed here. Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The economy section needs to mention the role of agriculture. Was Quirgua self-sufficient or did it rely on trade to supply food? Did it export crops, if so what route did it take, the same as the obsidian? What kind of crops were grown, was there meat in the diet? Was meat a part of their diet? Similar questions apply to livestock as well as crops.
  • The economy section does mention that cacao was grown locally as a cash crop. The article does explain that Quiriguá's reason for existence was that it sat on a trading crossroads linking various important Maya centres. As for Maya diet etc., that is beyond the scope of the article, (being covered in Maya cuisine, which isn't linked because it is not specifically relevant to Quiriguá). Simon Burchell (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While cacao was the cash crop, what was grown for sustinence? Was cacao used in the staple diet? The issue how the city sustained itself is important, so information on where it's food came from (as opposed to the diet) should be included. Nev1 (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've found a ref to maize as the main subsistence crop (normal among the Maya, but not specifically mentioned elsewhere for Quirigua), and its use in tribute payments to Copan. I've put this all into the Economy section. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Maya had no livestock to speak of and in general had a meat-poor diet until the introduction of cattle, sheep, goats, horses, pigs and chickens by Europeans in the 16th century. Domestic animals were limited to dogs and turkeys, with no specific references to either at Quiriguá. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A brief explanation of where the information comes from in the known rulers section would be useful. I was curious why some were known and others not, what sort of records were maintained or whether names are known through epigraphy.
  • "Evidence suggests that Quiriguá and Copán were founded by elite colonists from the great city of Tikal": what's the evidence? What artefacts suggest colonists were elite?
  • "The recorded history of Quiriguá starts in 426, in the Early Classic (c.200–c.600), according to hieroglyphic inscriptions at other sites": this needs to be rewritten. At the moment, it reads as if the hieroglyphic inscriptions state "the recorded history of Quirigua starts in 426", rather than what I presume is the actuality that the earliest record of Quirigua is in hieroglyphics at other sites dating. Is this what is meant: "The recorded history of Quiriguá starts in 426, during the Early Classic (c.200–c.600); according to hieroglyphic inscriptions at other sites, on 5 September 426, K'inich Yax K'uk' Mo' was enthroned as king of Copán"?
  • "From this it is evident that right from the beginning of its recorded history Quiriguá was subservient to its southern neighbour, and was founded to bring the lucrative trade route of the Motagua River under the control of Copán and, indirectly, of Tikal": I don't think the reasoning of the second part of the sentence quite follows. Was Quirigua founded with the installation of Tok Casper as king? If not, what evidence is there that Quirigua was subservient to Copan? What prompts the reasoning that the settlement was founded to exploit trade routes?
  • The dynastic history of the site, as mentioned, begins with Tok Casper being installed on the throne by the king of Copán, this in itself is a demonstration that Tok Casper was subservient. The Motagua River was a major trade route in the Classic Period. In the opinion of prominent Mayanists, the city was founded to exploit this route. I can do no more than reflect my sources and cite them. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 480, an early monument records the supervision of a ritual by the then overlord from Copán, demonstrating Quiriguá's continued status as a vassal of that city": the current wording implies that the monument on recorded details of the supervision in 480. It should be reworded to "An early monument records the supervision of a ritual in 480 by the then overlord from Copán, demonstrating Quiriguá's continued status as a vassal of that city."
  • On the first occurrence of "platform (3C-1)", the reason for (3C-1) should be explained as it is not clear and it means nothing to the reader. Is it necessary to use (3C-1) at all? I think it's excessively technical and qualifying the location of the platform should be enough to differentiate it from other platforms and would make the article more open to readers. The same goes for "hilltop Group A" (btw, more inconsistent capitalisation here); what are the other groups, how is group A defined? And Stela U.
  • These groups, structures and monuments are discussed individually further down, in the Site section. I think its useful to leave these designations in since they can then be cross-referenced if anyone wishes to do so. It would also help, if the article is further expanded, to know what structure etc. is being discussed. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's counter-intuitive to explain what 3C-1 refers to after its first mention. At the very least, it needs to be explained on its first occurrence (similar to how abbreviations in articles are dealt with), but I think think it's too technical and jargon-y. The designations would mean nothing to someone unfamiliar with the site. More user friendly descriptions could be used, such as clarifying the position of the platform etc, and while they would be more wordy they would be more accessible. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is evidence that Quiriguá suffered an attack by unknown enemies in this period, as demonstrated by the apparently deliberate defacement of Stela U and Monument 26": is that all the evidence? No layers of burning or destruction, no weapons? It could have been an internal struggle. Who is thought to have attacked?
  • "A revival can be identified by the dedication of the first new monument...": a rival to what? Platform 3C-1 as the centre of Quirigua? It isn't clear at the moment.
  • Why is it not mentioned in the population section that Quiriguá's "total population never exceeded a few thousand"?
  • The following is a bit clunky and back to front: "In 762 K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat supervised the accession of "Sunraiser Jaguar" to the throne of Xkuy, an as yet unidentified site. Xkuy had been attacked and burned by Uaxaclajuun Ub'aah K'awiil in 718, after the sacrifice of the king of Copán this city appears to have become a loyal vassal of Quiriguá". I'd recommend changing to something like "In 718, the city of Xkuy – an as yet undiscovered site – was attacked and burned by Quirigua under the leadership of King Uaxaclajuun Ub'aah K'awiil. After the king of Copan was sacrificed in 738, Xkuy seems to have become a vassal of Quirigua and in 762 K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat supervised the accession of "Sunraiser Jaguar" to the city's throne". Assuming that's correct though, it's not exactly clear from the current phrasing.

I only got about half way through the article, but I think it's likely that the rest of the article has serious issues. In conclusion, the article needs a copy edit to smooth out the prose, but I'm more concerned about the article needing more information. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I won't necessarily respond individually to each of the demands for more information above. However, I can only supply information that is in the available sources. The two main sources are Looper's Lightning Warrior, a detailed study of the sculpture of the site, and Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens by Martin & Grube. Neither of these are archaeological reports and they don't supply detailed information on artifacts recovered. However, all three authors (Simon Martin, Nikolai Grube and Matthew Looper) are specialists who are respected in the field of Maya investigations. If they say there is evidence, then I can be reasonably sure that there is, and say so in the article text - there can hardly be more reliable sources in the field of Maya investigations. It is also worth mentioning WP:Summary, and not going into unnecessary detail. The article, as written, provides a solid summary of the history and context of the site.
Some of the other points, use of passive voice, inconsistent capitalisation etc., are fair comments and I'll take a look at that fairly soon. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but when you state there's evidence, it can't then be withheld. Looper et al shouldn't do this, but if they withhold it, further sources are required. The report from the 1974–79 investigations (assuming it's been published, and there should be something) should be an integral source. Also, after skimming the modern history section, I can't see anything on measures taken to preserve the site, any threats, the protection given to it in law, who administers it, or whether there are any visitors to the site. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looper et al do, of course, cite their sources. I, however, do not have access to them and it is not reasonable to assume that I should. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nev1 makes a good point about current status of the site - tourism, protection. I do recall at Tikal there was discussion (for instance) about how much jungle to remove from monuments and in what condition they should be left in (some are overgrown, some in lawns etc.), so my support is conditional on that being addressed. I think this is readily doable :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in some details at the end of the Modern History section. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some more information on, for example, what criteria the site is inscribed under would be useful, and visitors (assuming it's open to the public, that isn't made clear) aren't mentioned, or the protection offered by being a WHS.
UNESCO provides funds for developing countries to preserve World Heritage Sites, does Quirigua receive any of this funding? Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UNESCO criteria are found in the infobox at the head of the page. I've expanded the WHS mention, with info from the UNESCO website re. one-off funding. I've also noted that the site is open daily, according the the Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an afterthought about the known rulers section, it seems a bit odd to have one sentence explaining it. Although it's explained later in the article, it might be useful, in the same section, to explain briefly about succession. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much happier about the article and its comprehensiveness now and feel that it's much more accessible to the layman. Thanks for your patience. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images should meet criteria now. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.