Wikipedia

Talk:Spanish conquest of Yucatán/GA1

< Talk:Spanish conquest of Yucatán
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Anotherclown in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago38 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 08:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply


Progression

edit
  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

edit
  • Citations: The Citation Check tool revealed a few issues with reference consolidation:
    • Clendinnen 1987, 2003, p. 7. (Multiple references contain the same content)   Done
    • Sharer and Traxler 2006, p. 766. (Multiple references contain the same content)   Done
    • Jones 2000, p. 353. (Multiple references contain the same content)   Done
    • Jones 2000, p. 352. (Multiple references contain the same content)   Done
    • Rice and Rice 2009, p. 10.   Done
    • Rice 2009, p. 17. (Multiple references contain the same content)   Done
    • Rice 2009, p. 17.   Done
    • Feldman 2000, p. xxi. (Multiple references contain the same content)   Done - the two places contain similar (not identical) lists of indigenous groups, but I think it is helpful to recap in the second instance. I've rephrased so as not to repeat word-for-word. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Jones00p353 (Multiple references are using the same name)   Done
    • Jones00p352 (Multiple references are using the same name)   Done
  • Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
  • Linkrot: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
  • Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [6] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: a few repeat links to be removed:
    • limestone
    • Cenozoic
    • Chilam Balam
    • Campeche
    • Petén Department
    • Amatique Bay
    • adelantado
    • Quintana Roo
    • Yucatán
    • San Pedro River

Criteria

edit
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • There is quite a bit of information in the lead which doesn't appear in the article itself, and whilst it is admittedly cited I'm not sure this really is the best way to do things. Specifically per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article and generally doesn't contain citations; however, as it stands it works more as an introduction to the subject. There is some good information here which definitely should be retained, but I think it should be worked into the body of the article itself (with the citations) and then remove the citations from the lead.
    • Outside of this issue the impact of disease should be included in the lead. Also I'm not sure the very short second paragraph works. You could probably just merge paras 2 and 3.
    • Quite a few place names throughout the article which could probably be wikilinked.
    • "Among the Maya, ambush was a favoured tactic." This is probably too short to be a paragraph on its own, perhaps merge with the para above it?
    • Prose here is repetitive: "...to scout the island. As Bartholomew scouted the island..."
    • These sentences use repetitive language: "...The ship was wrecked upon a reef known as Las Víboras ("The Vipers") or, alternatively, Los Alacranes ("The Scorpions"), somewhere off Jamaica.[56] There were just twenty survivors from the wreck, including Captain Valdivia, Gerónimo de Aguilar and Gonzalo Guerrero.[58] The survivors set themselves adrift in one of the ship's boats, with bad oars and no sail; after thirteen days during which half of the survivors died, they made landfall upon the coast of Yucatán..." Specifically "wrecked" and "wreck" and "survivors". Perhaps reword a few?
    • Also repetitious: "The water casks brought from Cuba were leaking and the expedition was now running dangerously low on fresh water; the hunt for fresh water became an overriding priority as the expedition advanced, and shore parties searching for water were left dangerously exposed because the ships coult not pull close to the shore due to the shallow waters..." (water is mentioned 5 times in the one sentence).
    • "A large contingent put ashore in the brigantine and the ships boats..." should this be "ship's boats"?
    • Respective prose here: "Attempts at communication were once again attempted..."
    • "The fleet left Cuba in April 1518.[77] The fleet..."
    • Some inconsistent presentation of access dates in the refs, for instance some use the format "Retrieved 2013-12-19", others "Retrieved 16 February 2013." Probably best to choose a consistent format.
    • Some inconsistency in date format in the article body. In most places you use ddmmyyyy, in others ddmm (for instance 13 March 1525 vs December 8).
    • repetitive language: "...under the command of his second-in-command..."
    • "while the entire Pole garrison had been slaughtered..." consider instead "...while the entire garrison at Pole had been slaughtered..."
    • "...failed attempt to kill Montejo the Younger...", Montejo the Younger should be wikilinked a first use not here.
    • "Montejo the Younger then sent his cousin Chauaca where most of the eastern lords greeted him in peace." I'm not sure I quite understand the meaning of this sentence. Is there a missing word here, specifically should it be: "Montejo the Younger then sent his cousin to Chauaca where most of the eastern lords greeted him in peace..."?
    • These two sentences are constructed in a fairly similar manner which makes the prose repetitive: "The Cochua Maya resisted fiercely but were soon defeated by the Spanish. The Cupul Maya rose up against the newly imposed Spanish domination, but their opposition was soon put down." Perhaps consider something like: "The Cochua Maya resisted fiercely but were soon defeated by the Spanish. The Cupul Maya then rose up against the newly imposed Spanish domination, but their opposition was also soon put down."
      • I've changed to The Cochua Maya resisted fiercely but were soon defeated by the Spanish. The Cupul Maya also rose up against the newly imposed Spanish domination, but their opposition was quickly put down. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Missing word here I think: "This battle marked final conquest of the northern portion of the Yucatán Peninsula..." → "This battle marked the final conquest of the northern portion of the Yucatán Peninsula..."
    • There is some duplication of information between the first fews paragraphs of the "Petén Basin, 1618–97" and the earlier "Yucatán before the conquest" sections but I'm unsure as to what purpose this serves.
    • Overuse of the term "Spanish soldiers here" makes it a little repetitive: "Spanish soldiers let their guard down, the Itza seized and bound the new arrivals.[130] The soldiers were sacrificed to the Maya gods.[131] After the sacrifice of the Spanish soldiers..."
    • Also repetitive: "The fate of the leader of Delgado's Maya companions was no better. With no word from Delgado's escort, Mirones sent two Spanish soldiers with a Maya scout to learn their fate..." (specifically "fate" twice in close proximity).
    • "...captain Alonso García de Paredes led a group of 50 Spanish soldiers..." Is "captain" used here as a proper noun? If so it should be capitalised.
    • Likewise "captain Juan Díaz de Velasco..."
    • Repetitive: "...accompanied by a large number of Maya archers from Verapaz, and native muleteers; he was accompanied..."
    • Consider wikilinking "leagues"
    • Repetitive: "150 Spanish and pardo soldiers and 100 Maya soldiers..." (use of "soldiers" twice in close proximity).
    • "...where they were well received by the cacique..." what is a "cacique"?
    • "...to convert to Christianity and surrender to the Spanish crown, without success..." should "crown" be in capitals here?
    • Repetitive language here: "...found their way back to Chuntuki and from there made their way..." ("their way" twice)
    • "...captain García de Paredes had arrived at the advance...", again should captain be capitalised?
    • Repetitive here too: "...Spanish party were forced into canoes, and three of the Spanish party..."
    • Is there a reason why some citations use two years? For instance "Clendinnen 1987, 2003" and "Pohl and Hook 2001, 2008". I'm assuming you are including the date of the original edition and the date of the latest edition? Not really sure that works though. Surely for clarity you should only be citing the year of the edition that is actually used to reference the information in the article? Using both dates seems inexact to me. If it is a reprint you can use the "origyear" parameter in the citation template for the long cite, but I still wouldn't include it in the short cite.
      • This does indeed represent the date of the original edition, together with the date of the actual edition used. I've used this format on FAs without problems and I prefer to keep it to make clear when early sources are used - this is not yet the case on this article but is likely to become relevant with future expansion, when I am likely to cite modern editions of 16th century works, for example the Cartas de relación of Hernán Cortés - there will be others. I've not used the "origyear" parameter before, and that may be an acceptable workaround. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • I've actually gone through the whole lot, removed the orginal year from the short cite, and separated the parameters in the long cite. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
    • No issues with OR that I could see.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    • Most major points seem to be covered without unnecessary detail.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation):   b (all significant views):  
    • No issues I could see.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
    • No issues here.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned):   b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):   c (non-free images have fair use rationales):   d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:  
    • Images seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
    • Captions look ok.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:  
Thanks for taking the time to look at this lengthy article. I've worked through everything you've pinpointed so far, except the alt text for images, which I will gradually work through. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Gday Simon. Fairly happy with the way you have moved this article forward so pls let me know when you are done making revisions and I'll make one final check before finalizing the review. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi Anotherclown - I think I'm done! Thanks for all the attention to detail. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
No worries, passing now. Well done on significantly improving our coverage of an important topic. Anotherclown (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_conquest_of_Yucatán/GA1&oldid=628765922"