Talk:Motul de San José

Unreferenced event removed from article

I've remove the following entry from the historical events section. I wrote it a long time ago and, in spite of searching my sources, have been unable to find where I got it from:

There is a glyphic record that sometime before 731 a lord of Motul was captured by a lord of Machaquilá.

I've moved it here until I can reference it. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in T. Patrick Culbert's Classic Maya Political History, on p.63 of the 1st pbk edn, in the chapter on Pasion region polities by Mathews and Willey. The capture is mentioned in association with Machaquila's Ruler B. Not made clear though just which actual inscription this comes from - in that book at least. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've now reinstated the cut material, and added some extra stuff from the same page. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

San José or Motul?

Is the present-day village known as San José, or as Motul de San José? In case it is simply called San José, where does the Motul part come from?77.162.130.139 (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The village is called San José. I believe the "Motul" part comes from the traditional Maya name for the ruins. I think I read somewhere that it may be linked to the "Mutal" name used for Tikal, although I can't remember where I got that idea from, so take it with a pinch of salt. Note that the ruins are some kilometers from the village, so Motul de San José means, more-or-less, Motul within the district of San José. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Motul de San José/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is is possible to find a more appealing image to put in the template? (The current one doesn't mean much to the general reader like me.)

Do you mean the first picture? There aren't many photos of the site available - and they're all used in the article. If you think one of the others would be better placed at the beginning, please let me know. I would not be keen on the Yaxchilan lintel being the first photo, since it comes from another site. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede

• why is "Maya city" piped to "city"? - readers not likely to click on "city" link

Only because it read more naturally. I've changed it. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• what is "Ik-style"?

Ik-style ceramics are explained in the article body - I've now summarised this in the intro.

• Lede doesn't summarize article. Most of the article is not mentioned in the lede, not even the large sections.

I always forget to update the intro! I've briefly summarised all the main sections now.

Location

• Too long, I think

I think the location section summarise the most relevant information upon the siting of the city - I don't see anything here that shouldn't be included.

• as the crow flies - too casual?

Possibly. I've removed it, probably not necessary anyway. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the geology is described so extensively? What river feeds into what etc? Does become relevant further down in the article?

All relevant to how a city grows and survives, especially since the Maya used watercourses as trade routes, something touched upon in the economy section.

• And how far apart the town and villages are?

The distance to the nearest modern settlements is relevant, I think, and also other important places such as Tikal (which dominated the region in ancient times) and Guatemala City, giving the reader an idea of its location in Guatemala.

• Would be better to explain things like what the Motul Ecological Park is?

Emblem glypy

• Too short. Apparently this is quite significant, but that is not explained

I've expanded this to explain what an emblem glyph is. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why does it have a section all to itself (whereas "Ik style ceramics" is a subsection that doesn't even show up in the TOC)?

I can't think of anywhere else to put it, it doesn't seem to fit neatly into any other section. Ik-style ceramics has now been moved up a level.

Economy

• Why is "Ik style ceramics" a subsection under "Economy"?

I've moved it up one level.

General questions

• Shouldn't "Site description" come after the lede? After all, this article is about the site.

On the various Maya city articles the site is generally put in historical context before getting down to the nitty-gritty of the physical lay out. See, for instance, Quiriguá, Takalik Abaj, Copán, Tikal, Q'umarkaj, Zaculeu, Iximche etc. It would be best to keep this consistant with the rest. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "Economy" come before "Occupation and diet"? Isn't the general topic of "Economy" more important than "Occupation and diet"?

Fair enough, I've reordered them.

• Why is there a navigation template in the middle of the article?

This template generally comes fairly near the beginning of Maya articles. In this case it seems the first place where there is room for it.

• Why are geolocators sprinkled through the article?

The satellite sites, at the time, seemed too short to warant independent articles, but their locations seemed relevant. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why is the article so long? To me it loses focus.

Can you be more specific? I generally use Takalik Abaj as a guide, since it passed FA, and is a fairly long article. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Could some of the information be spun off into sub-articles or lists?

I think some of the satellite sites could be broken off into separate articles, however I have very little information to hand on some of them, and some of them may not be important enough to warrant their own article. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

• I am having trouble understand why this article is organized the way it is and why some seemingly peripheral information is included, and seemingly important information is deemphasized. Perhaps you can explain this to me. Is there a convention regarding this type of article?

MathewTownsend (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll reply to each point individually when I have more time. In general, I'm aware that the section organisation is a little messy and am hoping this review will iron that out - for most of the Maya site articles that I've worked on, I've written them in a short burst. However, this one developed much more slowly over the course of several years as more info became available. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• Thanks for responding. I did look at the Quiriguá and a couple of others. I would like to make some suggestions (which of course you are free to reject) and a little copy editing (which of course you are free to revert).

• One suggest is to add just a little more context for the general reader. For example, you explained to me above why the geography is important to understanding the article. But the general reader who encounters it in the first section won't necessarily understand. If there is a way to connect the sections together so that there is a flow the reader can follow. (By connect, I mean add a few sentences in the geography to explain the importance.)

I've added a little about importance access to surface water and of river routes to Maya trade in the Location section. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't anticipate problems from prose etc. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

• Since this site is noted for being the source of Ik-style polychrome ceramics, what type of clay/material were these made of, and is the geology of the area important in this regard? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't been able to find much - just that local clay was used. However, I have an enormous amount of info available in non-searchable PDFs, which makes it harder to pin down the information.

Further comment

I'm still pondering this article. I have been looking at Quiriguá as a model at your suggestion.

• It doesn't have geolocators sprinkled through the article (one of my objections).
• It's TOC is much more understandable and follows a logical path: Quiriguá TOC

• Name and location
• Population
• Economy
• Known rulers
• History

• Early history
• Hiatus and recovery
• Apogee
• Decline and collapse
• Postclassic
• Modern history

• The site

• Architecture
• Monuments

• See also etc.

Whereas Motul de San José is

• Location
• Emblem glyph
• Economy
• Ik style ceramics
• Occupation and diet
• History
• Site description
• Satellite sites
• See also etc.

• I recognize that you have put a lot of work into this article and that it is well written and well sourced.
• I just realized that you have limited the TOC to 2; this makes trying to follow the article more difficult, as the TOC helps guide the reader through the article. I will ask for a second opinion on this, as I may be being unfair to you because of my unfamiliarity with the topic. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I set the TOC limit because I thought the TOC ran on for too long. I've reset it to 3, with the infobox (which wasn't originally there when I wrote the article) this doesn't look too bad, at least not on my browser. I don't see the geolocators as a major problem; although I admit I don't like how they look they do provide useful information. Perhaps if I move them into a table at the start of the Satellite sites section? Simon Burchell (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

I think that's much better (having the TOC obvious from the beginning). It starts to make more sense. ok about geolocators, as there is no "rule" regarding them for GA that I'm aware of. I'd prefer them in a table, if the table would be clear so the reader could follow. A table would make easier for the reader to compare the location of sites. I'm ready to pass the article anyway, as I don't see how geolocators can be a hold up. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've dropped in the table and moved all the coords. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Great work. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks Mathew - it was good to give this article a polish - and thanks for meeting me half-way on this! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Motul de San José. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202133055/http://www.famsi.org/reports/05039/05039Castellanos1.pdf to http://www.famsi.org/reports/05039/05039Castellanos1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318030422/http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/60.99_-_Foias.pdf to http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/60.99_-_Foias.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213101451/http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/39%20-%20Moriarty.04.pdf to http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/39%20-%20Moriarty.04.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914133722/http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/87_-_Reents_et_al.pdf to http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/87_-_Reents_et_al.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914031305/http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/32.94_-_Valdes_et_al.pdf to http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/32.94_-_Valdes_et_al.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614001202/http://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/journal/404/Sport.pdf to http://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/journal/404/Sport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)