Talk:Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition/GA1

GA Review

first review: These are just first development thoughts from a new pair of eyes to the article and the subject.

• first mention of BCE is wikilinked, first mention of CE is not. I know BCE redirects to CE but a reader may not, especially one not familliar with this terminology.

Done

• ...it became apparent in the middle of the 20th century ... why did it become apparent, how did it become apparent?

You raise an interesting point. I have added a new section on the "History of scholarly research", which should answer that question in a more robust manner.

• you mention ...Michelet... from nowhere - I think a first name , what he / she did / does so that the reader can begin to understand the "worth" of the statement.

Excellent point. I have removed the quote from that lead paragraph, but kept its meaning, and moved it back to the Notes section.

• BCE has been linked more than once, but not consistantly, both BCE and CE only need the one wikilink.

Done

• ...although there is not wide agreement on the end date... can a sentence be put into the lead to prepare the reader for the fact that there are discussions / therories etc about certain facets of the subject. Take a look at the lead of Ring of Pietroassa a subject which also has theories / possibilities etc.

Done. I put a clause on the lead paragraph.

• just checking - you are using american english - which is fine no problem, but I think a formula or a text based comparison to feet within ...dug 3 to 20 metres down...

I often don't translate "metres" because most of us American folks know that a metre is roughly a yard, so when I find "metres" used in my sources, I just leave it at that. I think that "3 to 20 metres (3 to 22 yards)" is a bit clumsy and not worth it the extra ink.

• wikilink ...obsidian... not a word that people come across that often.

Done.

• the Chinesco-style figurine, showing the archetypal puffy, slit-like eyes and short tapered legs. Is it possible to list which type the image used is; A to E

Done.

The points below are here for you to just think about it. Being mentioned does not necessarily mean they need to be changed, just that they need to be thought about so if they remain they do so because the writers want them to be there.

• why are the references titled that, are they not further reading?

Like nearly all other articles within Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica, this article uses shortened notes.

Thank you for an informative article; if I feel the article needs further GA requirements I will cover that in my next review. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions are spot on, and I have made a number of changes, with the exception of the metres-to-yards conversion. What else? Thanks, Madman (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

second review:

• who is the ... Michael Kan (that) finds that "their calm, subtle exterior suggests rather than demonstrates emotion" I worked it out by going to the notes (20) and then referring to the reference to see that he authored a book. Would the wording ...The author / historian / whatever Michael Kan finds that "their calm, subtle exterior suggests rather than demonstrates emotion"

I've now identified him as "One prominent curator, ".

• Connections with other Mesoamerican cultures: can the statement ...and their nearest counterpart comes from northwestern South America.... have any reference / note attached.

Done.

• Isabel Kelly is a red link, are there plans to maker a page on this subject? If not maybe an idea to "unwikilink" it. red links do not constitute a fail for GA (well not just one of them) but all the same if in the future a page is created then you can wikilink the articles.

I've taken it off, but Isabel is certainly notable enough to have her own article.

• ...Kelly would eventually publish 13 papers on her work... but the reference (50) goes to Meighan and Nicholson, p. 177. and I was expecting Kelly. And she is not listed in the reference, were her papers in peer publications, and not available?

I am not sure how -- or even whether -- to reference this. Meighan and Nicholson list these 13 publications (which were in peer reviewed publications or papers presented to symposiums, etc) so I thought I would reference back to their list. I've removed the reference, since it's not all that critical. Is this OK?

I have this time (as I am sure you will have noticed) read this article again making changes as a reader wanting to find out more. Hopefully the small ones you will be happy with. This is a good article and I can not see much wrong with it for a GA review. This I plan to do in the near future hopefully, after another read through and think. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Madman (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

third review one slight problem ...it became apparent in the middle of the 20th century that the artifacts and tombs were instead over 1000 years older... is I believe not backed up in the History of scholarly research section so I ask the original question why? how? Deleting the sentence will do more harm than good, it is a valid point and does prepare the reader for the "professional discussions" that are continuing about the subject. Any ideas? If it is the discovery of a complete tomb then say so, if it is something else then say so; link the part of the History of scholarly research section with the statement in the lead. It is an important statement but needs to be referenced. Other than that I amhappy and will review for GA in the next few days. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 16:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I had thought that this was covered by the following sentence:

In 1946, Salvador Toscano challenged the attribution of these artifacts to the Tarascans,[51] a finding that was later confirmed by radiocarbon dating of charcoal and other organic remains from plundered shaft tombs salvaged in the 1960s by Diego Delgado and Peter Furst.

This sentence shows who first challenged the attribution (Salvador Toscano), when (1946), and how this challenge was borne out by work in the 1960s.

I don't attach the same importance to that "attributed to the Tarascans". As noted in the article, this erroneous attribution was made by an explorer -- not an archaeologist -- and these pioneers had many speculations that turned out to be just plain wrong. This sort of "wow, this is older than early 20th century explorers thought" is common to Mesoamerican studies. For example, the Olmec were originally considered to be contemporaneous with the Maya, something that was challenged in the 1940s and proven with radiocarbon dating in the 1960s.

Your thoughts? Madman (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you agree with the slightly crude insert into the lead. I did not make myself clear in the first mention what I felt was needed was a link to further information about the statement at the moment you read the statement. I hope you find it acceptable. The attribution sentence does give the statement more import than it seems you wish, but presumably at the time to make the connection between the artefacts and the V culture was an informed educated guess which was refuted years later and then later still the refuted statement was supported by further research. Surely this is what science / history / archaeology etc etc is all about, and as such should be put into the article. As a wikipedia article hopefully what the reader is looking for and what the reader gets is: Information known about the subject, (and in this case) how that was arrived at if relevant, because that means even things written here in good faith today - have the possibility of being proved wrong, it is part of exploring the human past. maybe we should have one of those boxes that says "this article is about early human history and is liable to change over a long period of time as new methods of research and new findings bring new insights into the culture and artefacts. An excellent article and yet again I have learnt new things (some of which I will forget, but I am human). I will read once more, ruminate and decide. Thank you for your sterling work through the process. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I took out the names of the specific archaeologists from the lead paragraph -- these folks are not critical enough in my opinion to be mentioned in the lead -- their names would really add nothing to the discussion but would (in my opinion) detract from the more important information there. In the stead of their names, I added "as a result of further research".

I also added further information to the "Tarascan question" in the "History of scholarly research" section, info that bridges the 1946 Toscano and 1960s radiocarbon dating, satisfyingly enough from Miguel Covarrubias, a reference already used in the article.

And finally I added a bit more information on Lumholtz's 1902 travels that sheds some light on why he might attribute the shaft tomb artifacts to the Tarascan culture.

Hope this works for you. Madman (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

excellent, I hope you understand my need for that statement to be supported, and with your choice of the language used clearly linked to the scholarly history section Edmund Patrick – confer 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Edmund. This was smoother than I expected. Thanks for your constructive criticism, Madman (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am pleased to say that this article has passed. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. As I said I have learnt from this review and enjoyed the journey.Edmund Patrick – confer 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)