Talk:Spanish conquest of Chiapas

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spanish conquest of Chiapas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 01:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Simon Burchell, I will be conducting a thorough and comprehensive review of this article in phases over the next 48 hours. Please feel free to respond to my comments throughout the process. I appreciate all your hard work on this article thus far! -- Caponer (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Simon Burchell, I apologize for the extended duration of my review, but it is now complete, and while I find that it easily meets the criteria for Good Article status, a few changes are necessary before its passage. You've done an extraordinary job here in crafting this article and it was a privilege and a pleasure to review! -- Caponer (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2015 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

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:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the article. The lede defines the conquest, establishes context for the conquest, explains why the conquest is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the conquest.
• Would it be possible to format a template for this article similar to the template at Spanish conquest of Petén?

I assume you mean the Military History campaignbox? I've done this, although I don't really have a suitable image to put in it. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, I suggest rewriting the sentence "Soconusco was incorporated into the Aztec Empire, centered in the Valley of Mexico, and paid the Aztecs tribute." or "..., and paid the empire tribute."

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Add comma following "In the early 1520s" in the second paragraph.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Should the sentence read "...and Spanish ships scouted the Pacific coast" instead?

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why is there no wiki-link or article for San Cristóbal de los Llanos? I believe the town is presently known as San Cristóbal de las Casas. This should be wiki-linked and stated in the lede.

San Cristóbal de los Llanos appears to have originally been at, or near to, Comitán, and the name was later transferred to San Cristóbal de las Casas. I've linked to Comitán, since that was its first establishment. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest rewriting this sentence as such "Within a year, Spanish dominion extended over the upper drainage basin of the Grijalva River, Comitán, and the Ocosingo valley."

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I also suggest adding a comma after conquest in the last sentence of the second paragraph.

I tried this, but it looked wierd to me and I removed it. Does it really need it? I'm not the most accurate grammaticist, and I'll put it in if you insist, but it seemed to break the sentence unnaturally. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Was the colonial province known as Chiapa rather than Chiapas?

This is explained in the footnote nb1 (linked straight after the article title in the first para), the colony of Chiapa included only the highlands. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest removing the term Indians, and replacing it with Indigenous peoples or something to that effect. I know it's repetitive given that indigenous is mentioned earlier but Indians doesn't seem to work here.

I've changed it for "natives". Simon Burchell (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, the lede is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Geography

• The image of the Sumidero Canyon is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• In the second sentence of the first paragraph, there should be a comma placed after west.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Chiapas should be wiki-linked in its first prose mention in the first paragraph, and it should probably be stated that Chiapas is a Mexican state.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the sentence: "It features two principal highland regions;" the semi-colon should be a colon.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Since the Montañas Centrales (Central Highlands) are mentioned as such in the prose, this should be stated in the lede similarly.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Grijalva River should be wiki-linked in its first mention within the main prose here.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Soconusco should also be wiki-linked in its first prose mention here.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sierra Madre de Chiapas should be wiki-linked in its first prose mention here as well. It should be stated as "Sierra Madre de Chiapas" consistently throughout the article to differentiate it from other Sierra Madres.

There is only one Sierra Madre discussed within the article, and the Sierra Madre de Chiapas is defined; when discussed in sources referring to Chiapas, it is usually shortened to simply the Sierra Madre, and I follow that practice here. Additionally, constructions such as "the Sierra Madre de Chiapas highlands" become clumsy; the Sierra Madre highlands reads much better, the fact that it is the Sierra Madre de Chiapas is implicit from the context. I would very much prefer to keep mentions of simple "Sierra Madre". Simon Burchell (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, it is suggested that inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs, and not within. But of course, this is not a deal breaker, and is merely a suggestion.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but the citation style is in line with other articles I have written (including at GA and FA). Simon Burchell (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles, the English name should be mentioned first followed by parentheses (Spanish: XXX). Also, Istmo-Costa in English is probably Isthmus Coast without the hyphen.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• When describing the two zones of the Depresión Central, one zone is mentioned in the first sentence, and another is mentioned in the second. I would split this into three sentences or make it one sentence beginning "The Depresión Central is itself divided into two zones:" and have the physical descriptions of both zones in the same sentence, although it will be a bit long.

I've changed the full stop into a semicolon, combining the sentences. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reword the final sentence: "At the eastern end of the Central Highlands is the Lacandon Forest, which is largely mountainous with lowland tropical plains at its easternmost extreme."

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Chiapas before the conquest

• The map of principal settlements in Chiapas during the Spanish conquest is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 and is therefore free to use here.
• Suggest rewording: "Gradually, Mayan speakers..."

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, perhaps rephrase as "Pacific coastline."

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Strategies, tactics and weaponry

• Reorganization note: In order to maintain the chronology, I would move the "Prelude to conquest" section here, then move the "Strategies, tactics and weaponry" section below it. I would also incorporate the "Impact of Old World diseases" section into the "Strategies, tactics and weaponry" section.

I have reordered as suggested. I have moved the disease section into the Strategies section, although I'm not entirely happy with it there (diseases were not deliberately introduced, so formed no part of strategy). However, it is a very short section and looked a little lonely before. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• In some places conquistadors are mentioned, and in others conquistadores are mentioned in italics. For consistency's sake, I would keep all mentions as conquistadores in italics.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Impact of Old World diseases

• As stated above, I would incorporate the "Impact of Old World diseases" section into the "Strategies, tactics and weaponry" section.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reword as such: "...moist lands of the Depresión Central; which remain sparsely populated to the present day"

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Do we know which specific Old World diseases wiped out the indigenous peoples of Chiapas?

I've added some detail. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Prelude to conquest

• As stated above, I would move the "Prelude to conquest" section here, then move the "Strategies, tactics and weaponry" section below it.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, I'd add a comma after 1522, and would reword as Spanish ships instead.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Conquest of Soconusco

• I suggest including one of the Wikimedia Commons images of Don Pedro de Alvarado in this section for added illustration. All images have been released into the public domain, so they are fit for use here.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• It should be stated that Pedro de Alvarado was a conquistadore.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, it is suggested that inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs, and not within. But of course, this is not a deal breaker, and is merely a suggestion.

WP:MOS used to say citations should be placed after punctuation; maybe that's changed, I certainly can't find that now. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hernán Cortés should be wiki-linked.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Also consider folding the Old World diseases section into this section.

I've already placed it within the Strategies section, since it is relevant to all of Chiapas, not just Soconusco.

• Cacao should be wiki-linked in its first mention.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would really take a hard look at ensuring that all content in the article is mentioned in chronological order, as the sections do jump a bit.

The article is subdivided geographically, since events were generally confined within particular regions (here broken down into Soconusco, the Highlands, and the Lacandon Forest), and jurisdictions differed (particulary since Soconusco did not fall within the colonial province of Chiapa). Broadly speaking, each of the three regions was conquered in the order I have put them, although history is messy and there was some overlap. I think it is convenient to cover the whole of Soconusco's history in one place, rather than breaking the section up and scattering it throughout the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Reconnaissance expeditions, 1524–1525

• Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, it is suggested that inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs, and not within. But of course, this is not a deal breaker, and is merely a suggestion.

See previous comments. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reword as such: "Following this battle, Marín headed into the central highlands of Chiapas, and around Easter, he passed through the Tzotzil Maya town Zinacantan without opposition from the inhabitants."

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• conquistadors should be written conquistadores for consistency's sake.

Typo corrected. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pedro de Alvarado is mentioned above in 1523, but now he gets another section. I would strongly advise reorganizing the article into "Prelude to conquest", then "Conquest of Soconusco and reconnaissance expeditions", then "Conquest of the Chiapas Highlands, 1527-."

Alvarado passed through Soconusco to conquer Guatemala, his expedition into the highlands came later. Since they were separate expeditions, they are dealt with in different places. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Conquest of the Chiapas Highlands, 1527-

• Is there and end date for this conquest? The section title shouldn't be left hanging like this.

I've put it as 1547, the last date mentioned in the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• reducciones is mentioned above in the article, and should be de-linked here, and wiki-linked in its first mention above.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles, the English name should be mentioned first followed by parentheses (Spanish: XXX).

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• The image of Santiago Matamoros is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• It soon became evident that the Dominicans needed to reestablish themselves in Ciudad Real..." It should also be reworded that following this reestablishment, the colonists were calmed.

It was the other way around; the hostilites were first calmed, so that the friars could return to Ciudad Real. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Conquest of the Lacandon Forest, 1559–1695

• The Ch'ol people are mentioned earlier in the article, so this mention should be de-linked and the earlier mention should be wiki-linked instead.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Add comma after In 1695 in the third paragraph.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reword as Real Audiencia of Guatemala.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• De-link successive mention of Royal Audiencia of Guatemala.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, it is suggested that inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs, and not within. But of course, this is not a deal breaker, and is merely a suggestion.

As above. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would remove mentions of "Indians" and replace with "indigenous peoples."

"Indians" is commonly used in reliable sources, both in English and Spanish, whereas "indigenous peoples" can make some sentences awkward. The word doesn't generally have the negative connotations in Latin America that I understand it can have in the US. I could replace it with "natives" I suppose... but would need to be convinced that Indians is wrong. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Historical sources

• Conquistador should be reworded conquistadores for consistency's sake.

Changed to singular conquistador, due to the context. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Editor note: I would also suggest nominating this article to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for a thorough copyedit.

Many thanks for the thorough review. I have replied to each above, in most cases I have changed the article accordingly. I await ypour response to my comments. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Simon Burchell, thank you for your speedy responses to each of my above comments and questions, especially considering my delayed completion of your article. Thank you again. Upon my review and re-review following your edits, I find that this article meets the criteria for Good Article status. For my suggestions and comments that you did not heed, they were merely suggestions so those are certainly not deal breakers as they fall outside the criteria for Good Article status. Congratulations again on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great, once again many thanks for the review. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)