User talk:Simon Burchell/Archive 2

GAN for Quiriguá
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm currently working through your list, details on the article talk page. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Simon, hearty congrats for the successful GA for this one- very well deserved! Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 23:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks CJ! Simon Burchell (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar for your excellent Guatemala work
Hi Simon! Guatemala is on my list of key areas this encyclopedia needs much growth in and it is great to see these DYKs. Morever some of them, particularly Takalik Abaj and Quiriguá are of outstanding quality and well referenced!! It really is great to see. Keep up the great work, perhaps you could also expand some of the city/town articles? Anyway heres an award for your work:


 * Wow, thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is awesome that you've visited all of these sites. I gather that this subject is your profession and you are an expert in this field? Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador greatly interest me. A friend of mine recently devleoped an article on Valley of Mexico. I helped out a little but it didn't quite reach GA. There are some pointers on the talk page for how to improve it. I wonder if you have a knowledge of the Valley of Mexico? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 12:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm no professional, but have an intense amateur interest having lived in the region for some years (although I'm not living there now, I do regularly return). I do know the Valley of Mexico reasonably well, I'll see what I can dig up when I've finished with Takalik Abaj and one or two other things I've got pending. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dating at Takalik Abaj
Simon. since you're heavily revising the page, you might want to take a look at some of the inconsistencies in dating that currently exist on the page. You've been adding that the early preclassic dates roughly 2000-1000 BC, whereas the table in the section on obsidian origins has the early preclassic dates of 1000-800 BC. Also, just a suggestion. Rather than repeat the dates every time you reference a time period, what about making a single table of unified period names and dates for the article. It would save you lots of typing and make the article more readable. Thanks for all the work you've put in on the article. Rsheptak (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions...and pointing out the mistake in the table, and a table of time periods is certainly a good idea rather than breaking the flow of the text practically every paragraph. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rereading my sources, they consistently refer to the Early Classic at Takalik Abaj as being 1000-800 BC, as opposed to the general Mesoamerican chronology for the Early Classic which ends in 1000 BC. I've revised the article according to the sources I've used, with a note in the chronology table to point out that this differs somewhat from wider dating in the region. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is good. However, it introduced another inconsistency in the article (which may be due to competing interpretations). The table lists initial Kiche contact occuring in the terminal classic, but the article text mentions that solano style ceramics, linked with the Kiche, appear in the early classic. Both can't be true. Rsheptak (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the sources, that's me trying to throw a table together too quickly and from memory...duly corrected! Simon Burchell (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Xiuhtecuhtli

 * Thank you! Simon Burchell (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Xiuhtecuhtli - no aut template
(first paragraph copied from User talk:Attilios where I began the discussion)

Hi Attilios - just a quick query as to why the 🇦🇹 template shouldn't be used - it's widely used in Wikiproject Mesoamerica articles, which is where I've picked up the habit. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it's not used nearly anywhere else. See WP:Manual of Style for how references should be (but mabye it's me who is not updated!). The main point for me is that here is not accepted to have stuff in capitals usually. Let me know. Ciao and good work. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Simon. While perhaps not quite a disinterested third party, I've offered some comments on this at WT:MESO. In short, I don't think there's any prohibition against the practice, and on the contrary the way we use it on wp:meso has a useful and valid intent. The template {aut} (actually its synonym, smallcaps) easily survived a deletion nomination only a couple of months ago, with no-one speaking out in favour of deletion. The template, and the style, have their appropriate purposes. Cheers, --cjllw  ʘ  TALK 00:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, personally I think the caps make the references clearer. However, I'm too "close" to the articles in question to judge dispassionately, so haven't reverted the changes. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I've restored the formatting in those couple now. Happy to discuss further with anyone, but I really can't see that it should be so bothersome to do things this way. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 03:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank again, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Earspools
Thank you for the new article. Sort of thought that's what they would be, but couldn't find anything anywhere - nice one. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation
It looks like there is a consensus already, but you are invited to sign up as a founding member, at WikiProject Council/Proposals, to cover other officially designated historic sites, world-wide. :) doncram (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I just added my support for what it's worth. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page.  Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there.  It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject becoming, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES.  Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kukulkan

 * Thanks, and I couldn't agree more... Simon Burchell (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Gumarcaj (moved over from DYK)
No problem! It's nice to see someone willing to work on some of the less-loved areas of en-wiki - we've got lots of people to work on Heroes episodes, but very few to work on stuff like that. I myself maintain a few articles about Unimportant dead people who, y'know, never did anything important, so I know what its like to be doing it alone. Good work on all of them, not just this one :). Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ironholds, I've plenty of material to keep me going on Mesoamerica articles for a long, long time... Simon Burchell (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hi! I just noticed the article on the main page that you wrote, Gumarcaj, and I noticed it doesn't use any "named reference" values. Because that article in particular uses so many references (which is really awesome by the way!) its probably best to use these values so the "Notes" section is more condensed and redundancy is removed. A good page to use to find out how to do this action is here, or if its easier for you, you could look at the couple of edits I made to the Gumarcaj article just now. I'm really impressed with all your DYKs by the way, especially since they're fighting systemic bias :-) Killiondude (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Killiondude, thanks for your comments. I actually used to use named references, but the concensus at Wikiproject Mesoamerica is against the use of named references. This being the case, I've reverted to using individual references, which does make individual edits easier. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yaxchilan
Hi, nice work on the article! However, you should always combine redundant references using and "other text" to reduce the amount of redundant citations. I did it on the Yaxchilan article, please check it out. Regards Hekerui (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Hekerui. The concensus at Wikiproject Mesoamerica is against the use of named references. I'm neutral on the subject of named references and have used them in the past, however, until the concensus at WP MESO changes, I'll continue to use individual references on Mesoamerican articles (only). As for Yaxchilan, I've only just started on expanding the article, since the site is extremely well documented. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it all felt fishy from the start since the article is nice and you've worked on a lot of stuff. However, to me the arguments brought up in the WP are not persuasive at all - refname stuff shortens references in the code and without it articles get bloated in the articlespace as well. I'd ditch this - consensus is article specific anyway. But who am I to advise you anyway? :) Hekerui (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Before I forget, I wish you and the project well - have read a book on the deciphering of the Mayan script when I was in school - fascinating. Hekerui (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Yaxchilan
Excellent work Simon. I was wondering if you could improve Tikal. It need s alot of work. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK Doc, I've still got some work to do on Yaxchilan, and another (non-Mesoamerican) article, then I'll see what I can do with Tikal. I've got more than enough sources to knock it into shape... Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

St. George's church, Trotton
Hi! You rated an article I wrote, St. George's church, Trotton, as C-class, I was wondering if you could offer some guidance on what you think needs improving. I'm hoping to get it to GA standard, which criteria do you think it is currently failing? Thanks for any advice you may have! --Tango (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tango. It's a nice article, with more cites throughout the article I would have rated it as B class. I've never done a GA review but have had one article passed for GA (see Quiriguá). I think it needs to be expanded to include any relevant info you can get your hands on, reliably referenced of course, to include such things as architecture, history, building materials, perhaps a list of presiding clergy from the medieval period to present and a summary of anything known about them, perhaps any distinctive items in the churchyard, all citing reliable references. However, that would just be my choice on such an article. Basically, try to make it as comprehensive as possible, illustrate accordingly, and reference thoroughly.


 * The following church articles have all passed GA, it's worth taking a look at them to get some ideas (and note none of them are as comprehensive as I have suggested above):
 * St Mary's Church, Acton
 * St Mary's Church, Nantwich
 * St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley
 * St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford


 * I hope this helps.


 * Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. When you say it needs more citations, do you mean from more sources or just more inline references to the existing sources? (The latter I can do easily, the former involves a trip to the local library!) There is a list of clergy on display in the church, so I can certainly add that if you think it would improve the article - are you sure it wouldn't just be a meaningless list of random names that are of no interest to anyone? There is a very old yew tree in the graveyard, I'll try and find a decent source for that (I just know its age from talking to other locals). I really appreciate your help! --Tango (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! I meant more inline citations, although more refs would also help, just by expanding the amount of material available to work from. Including a list, or not, is puerely down to your judgement and whether it appears in a source you can use as a reference (to avoid original research). Best regards, and good luck with the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll get to work on that tomorrow, then. :) --Tango (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

25 DYK award
Thanks DM! Simon Burchell (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks Maunus! Simon Burchell (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quirigua reports
Hi there Simon. Another well-deserved and hard-earned barnstar for all your awesome work, I see -- I can only endorse Maunus' comments!

The FAR for Quirigua seems to be going ok, tho' I think Nev1's comments of 'serious problems' is a bit harsh/overdone. There's only so much info one can cram in to an article, those 'missing' pieces (such as they are) are not what I'd describe as serious or dealbreaker issues.

I note you'd commented you didn't have ready access to the seasonal reports. You probably already have found these, but it seems that a lot of Penn Museum's Quirigua Reports series edited by Ed Schortman can be accessed (limited view) on googlebooks, so if you needed to back up anything from the 70s/80s fieldwork direct you might be able to at least search for details in them, if lucky the relevant parts of a paper will come up. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 09:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks CJ! I'll have a look at those reports as soon as I get a chance. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Harsh? Perhaps I was. Unfair? I hope not. FAC is not meant to be a walk in the park but a critique of the article and should provide suggestions towards improvement. In my opinion the article greatly improved during the FAC through being made more accessible to the reader. Having worked on articles about pre-historic sites, I am well aware of the limitations of sources but wanted to be sure that as much information was included as possible without clogging up the article. My review may have seemed over the top, perhaps because I've tried writing articles on archaeological subjects myself, but explaining where information comes from is important and, as demonstrated in the article, can be done without taking up too much space. I'm slightly involved with some articles on World Heritage Sites, and the Quiriguá certainly sets the bar high. Hopefully when Sandy goes through the nominations at the weekend, Quiriguá will be promoted. Good luck. Nev1 (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. Nev1 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)