Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maya civilization/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2015.

Maya civilization

 * Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Maya civilization was one of the great civilizations of world history, with the earliest cities developing in the 8th century BC. The civilization developed a complex society, with major cities, a fully developed writing system, and a warrior aristocracy. It underwent a number of major changes through its history, and the Maya area was never unified into a "Maya Empire", rather existing as a large number of competing polities entwined in a complex network of alliances, vassalage, and enmities. I did a lot of work on this for the Core Contest, and it recently passed GA. It's well polished, and it would be a shame not to take it that final step after so much work. I look forward to any feedback. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Now moved to Support: Comments by Johnbod Seems a magnificent piece of work! It's great to see a really BIG topic at FAC, & a vindication of The Core Contest. It will take some time to work through - I went to "art" first & have fiddled a bit there. More comments later.
 * Were the Maya much involved in the complicated improvement of cultivated maize, or was that essentially complete before their time? The same for other plants I suppose.
 * According to The Mysterious Origin of Maize by Mary W. Eubanks, maize domestication took place outside of the Maya area, in central Mexico, and in Oaxaca. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

More later, Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Link some things at "The set of traits shared by Mesoamerican cultures also included astronomical knowledge, blood and human sacrifice, and a cosmovision that viewed the world as divided into four divisions aligned with the cardinal directions, each with different attributes, and a three-way division of the world into the celestial realm, the earth, and the underworld"? There are various possibilities, all linked below I'm sure, but a long way down. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've dropped in a bunch of links - surprisingly, Human sacrifice in Mesoamerica doesn't have an article and Human sacrifice in Pre-Columbian America redirects to Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures, which doesn't seem appropriate, so I've linked in to the top level Human sacrifice article. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In general some paras should be split - I realize the alleged 4 para lead limit is one issue. The one beginning "Chiapas occupies the extreme southeast of Mexico;..." is 279 words long.
 * I've split that one - let me know if any others need splitting, since they look OK on my laptop screen. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * on the other hand "but all regions of Mesoamerica cultivated the base crops of maize, beans, and squashes" were linked in the lead, a little way above. They turn up again lower down.
 * I've run through with AWB and cleaned out all repeated wikilinks. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * " after c. 1000 AD copper, silver and gold were worked. " not linked anywhere.
 * Linked. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Geography" Paras 1 & 2, too much repetition & repeated links between these and from lead I think
 * I've stripped out the repeated links. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Geography" this is pretty confusing/meaningless without a map namimg some of these places or features.
 * I've uploaded a modified version of the map, with labels. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Lots of repeated links in Pre-Classic
 * I've stipped out the repeated links, except where they were specifically requested. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Classic period: Something awry at "The period was one the peak of large-scale construction and urbanism..."
 * I've fixed this. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "There is evidence that the Maya population exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment; contributing factors included exhaustion of agricultural potential, deforestation, and overhunting of megafauna. Shifts in climate appear to have simultaneously resulted in a 200-year long drought." rather chewy to read - the bolded bits create slight confusion. Don't we have a better link, and indeed phrase, for "exhaustion of agricultural potential"?
 * Rephrased (and linked Land degradation/Deforestation). Simon Burchell (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's it for now. More later, Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Resuming:
 * " with the ruler's freedom of action being limited by traditional responses." reads oddly - "responses" in particular. "cultural patterns" or something?
 * How about changing it to "with the ruler's freedom of action being limited to traditional responses."? Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, much better. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "single rule was replaced by a ruling council" - there's a word for this - monarchy. Or some other phrase, but "single rule" is unusual and grammatically dubious I think.
 * I've reworded it as "individual rule". Simon Burchell (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * " large swathes of the central Maya area were all but abandoned" - are we sure this applied to the countryside (not the right term no doubt)? Or just the cities?
 * Yes, entirely abandoned in many cases, with very low levels of occupation thereafter, and fields reverting to jungle. Large areas were never repopulated at all. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't see that any of the many mentions of Chichen Itza have links! I'd give it 4 : lead, 2 pic captions, Postclassic period.
 * Looks like I was a little over-zealous in stripping out links with AWB! Anyway, I've linked as suggested. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Kaminaljuyu, linked in lead, but not in caption, or when covered in detail.
 * I've linked from the caption, and from the Preclassic section. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Is "Valley of Guatemala" (x2 at least) normally capitalized? Few valleys are.
 * Valley of Guatemala is usually capitalised as a geographical feature, while "Guatemala valley" would not be. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Shortly afterwards, the Spanish were invited as allies into Iximche, the capital city of the Kaqchikel Maya.[137] Good relations did not last and the city was abandoned a few months later." - a couple of words on why?
 * Excessive Spanish demands for gold - clarified. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Something on the survival of literacy in the late period might be worked in here - this isn't too clear in the writing section either. Both books and stelae.
 * Ok, enough in the writing section. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Generally captions are link-starved. Eg Catherwood. Normally captions should be fully linked.
 * I've fully linked captions throughout. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The end of "investigation ..." section might add a phrase on the collapse of the "peace-loving" meme too.
 * I've added a brief summary. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Rather, throughout its history, the Maya area contained a varying mix of states and chiefdoms" - who are these chiefs? Subordinate kings?  Did subordinate cities have their own kings? A bit confusing as is.
 * The point I'm trying to explain (unsuccessfully!) is that there was no fixed model - the reference to chiefdom vs state is to complexity in political development. These would sometimes be independent, and sometimes allied, or subordinate to, other polities. I've attempted to clarify this. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Chiefdom says, I think reasonably, "A chiefdom is a form of hierarchical political organization in non-industrial societies usually based on kinship, and in which formal leadership is monopolized by the legitimate senior members of select families or 'houses'." Do we know if Maya rulers were regarded as the kin of their commoners, even in the remote sense of say modern Scottish clan chiefs and their Canadian clan members?  Or were they like say Norman barons, foreign nobility who turned up one day with some henchmen?  I think introducing this concept, when we already have talk of king, ruler, warrior elite, nobility, aristocracy & probably other ideas, is a bit confusing when nothing more is said of it. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a large literature about the development of Maya kingship, and the transition from chiefdoms to complex states took place in the formative period - i.e. at the very beginning of the Maya civilization. In the classic period vestiges of chiefdoms existed only in the small rural outskirts that were generally incorporated politically into a state. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I think unless something like this is explained another word would be better.Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that by the Postclassic period, states and chiefdoms coexisted - for example, Nojpetén, Q'umarkaj, Mayapan, and Chichen Itza were regionally dominant states, while in some areas there was no unified political organisation, such as with the Manche Ch'ol and the Kejache, where towns and villages were ruled by local chiefs without any pledges of allegiance elsewhere. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I dout very much that those were chiefdoms in the anthropological sense of a society with an incipient degree of social stratification. Not every society led by a "chief" is a chiefdom in the technical sense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources describing these as chiefdoms come from anthropological journals. The sources seem clear that both chiefdoms and states coexisted throughout Maya history, up to the Spanish conquest. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we know anything about the land ownership system?
 * Based on land-ownership systems at the time of conquest, and continuing to the modern day in traditional Maya communities, land was communally held by noble houses (clans). I've added a couple of sentences in the society section. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Maya art tends to be stylistically regional", reads oddly. "Maya art has many regional styles" perhaps. Style (visual arts) could linked. Then "Maya art ... and is unique in the ancient Americas in bearing narrative text" does it actually have narratives, speaking strictly?
 * Rephrased as suggested. Maya art does contain narrative text - just one example among many, at Quirigua, text on monumental scultpure describes the capture of the ruler's overlord, and sacrifice, with names, dates, actions and places. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "It is estimated that a large elite residence at Copán required an estimated 445 man-days to build,..." Is that right? It doesn't sound a lot, when you include quarrying the stone etc. Only 11% = 42-man-days odd for "principal construction" as builders call it. 6 men for a full week. We could do with builders like that where I live! Then you say " it is estimated that two to three months were required for the construction of the residence for this single noble at Copán, using between 80 and 130 full-time labourers." Is a figure missing?
 * I've double checked, and all the figures are correct as per the source. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But there is clearly a big problem! At the minimum, 80 men for 2 months (say 60 days - I assume we're not on the Maya calendar here, or taking weekends off) = 4,800 man days. 80 men use 445 man-days in 5.56 days. On the other hand they use 4450 man-days in 55.6 working days. If you can't get to the primary source, I suggest you rephrase dropping the 445 figures & just using the later ones. Typos are not unknown in proper publishing. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK - problem found. 10,686 work days in the original study, became 10,686 work hours in the book I used (which I represented as 445 days). Well spotted! Simon Burchell (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Aah, that is more like builders round here! (Just kidding, guys) Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Limestone is relatively soft when freshly cut, but hardens with exposure" - i believe this is true of some limestones, like Caen stone, but not others.
 * That being the case, I've clarified to "the local limestone". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "served as a support for monumental art" - "support" reads oddly, though museums use it as a term for what a painting is on top of: surface, base, matrix?
 * In this case, support seems the right word - since it would be a masonry core, literally supporting the sculpture added to it, almost like a stone scaffold. Matrix would certainly not be right, nor surface, since it is a whole construction. I've reworded as "foundation for". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * E-Groups: Since these come as sets of 4, better explain at the start that they are not so called because they resemble an "E" shape (as Elizabethan "E-houses" do).
 * Clarified. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Regional architectural styles" sub-section starting bit - short & somewhat repetitive. Can it be phrased more compactly?
 * I've trimmed it a little. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "amatl, was typically bound as a single continuous sheet that was folded into pages of equal width, concertina-style, to produce a codex" - I found this confusing, mainly because of "bound", which arguably they are not, they're just folded (On a side point, the anomalous but universal use of "codex" for Meso-A texts is also confusing for those more used to Western bindings. Really, they aren't codices. But it's too late to change that usage.).  "was typically in the form of a single continuous sheet ...." maybe?
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "studies in decipherment have moved to a level of detail that does not significantly alter the basic understanding of the text itself." reads a bit confusingly. Maybe "studies in decipherment have moved to a level of detail where only minor aspects of the meaning remain unsettled" or something?
 * Done, as suggested. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * " a noun, verb, adverb, adjective, or phonetic sign... nouns, verbs, verbal suffixes, prepositions, pronouns." Links? I dunno.
 * I've linked them. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Commoners were illiterate; scribes were drawn from the elite. It is not known if all members of the aristocracy could read and write, although at least some women could, since there are representations of female scribes in Maya art" and the rest of the section. Just saying, it is typically the case in societies that many more people can read than can write. In the West they were taught separately, reading first, then writing, until relatively recently, with many dropping out after learning to read. Do the sources distinguish in this way?
 * Not that I recall having seen, I'll check some sources. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Spinden Correlation also accords with the documentary evidence, and is better suited to the archaeology of the Yucatán Peninsula, but presents problems with the rest of the Maya region. The Spinden Correlation would shift the Long Count dates back by 260 years." Reverse the order of these 2 sentences?
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "so Maya astronomy is more accurately termed astrology" seems a little sweeping. "so Maya astronomy was essentially for astrological purposes" perhaps. Western astronomy ran together with astrology for rather a long time, as did that of other cultures. Merely the predicting of eclipses takes Mayan A beyond astrology if you ask me.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Maya sites" - a couple of lines on the best museums?
 * I've added a new section with the major collections covered in the literature. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's it (finally). Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, supporting above. The "chief" point may be still in play, but I'll leave SB & Maunus to settle that. Fantastic work! Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a thorough review, and for the support! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Maunus

 * Considering the vast improvements taking place during the review, for an article that was already of extremely high quality, I am now happy to support this article's candidacy. I particularly think that the length concerns have been very well handled so that it cannot be considered a problem any longer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review and the support. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a great piece of work definitely, and the topic will be an immensely important addition to the FA collection. Given the scarcity of Native American related topics at that level I think it is worth it for the article to be sure that we set the best possible precedent. Particularly I think we need to give some serious thought to the question of representation. I will list some concerns that I have about this below. I realize that addressing these concerns will be a bit of work, requiring some reorganization and rewriting. I am not adamant that all of this has to be addressed in a specific way, but I think for me to be able to support we will at least have to have the discussion about how to approach this and how best to address the basic concerns.


 * The article focuses on the "ancient" Maya civilization. I think it risks doing so at the expense of severing the historical Maya culture from contemporary Maya culture and in doing so reinforcing a myth that I think the article should in fact debunk - namely the myth that "the Maya disappeared". I think the way to address this would be to make sure that the myth is explicitly debunked, and that the continuity between ancient and contemporary Maya culture is part of the framing of all parts of the article. There are for example no illustrations of living Maya people. A section towards the end on "Maya culture today", might be one way to address this problem, but it would also motivate some reframing thoughout the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we need to distinguish between Maya culture and the Maya civilization - which effectively ended with the incorporation of the Maya region into the extended Old World economic and technological order, and were no longer free to develop, build, worship, fight, etc. according to their own indigenous interests. The point is well made that they did not disappear, however, and a section near the end on the continuance of Maya culture would be worthwhile. When writing the Spanish conquest of the Maya articles, I believe I wrote something along these lines that I could incorporate into the article. When working on this article for the Core Contest, I was acutely aware of how lengthy the article was getting - the problem was never what to write, rather what to leave out. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think such a distinction is both highly problematic (both because of the hierarchic implications of distinguishing between culture and civilization, and because there is no way to objectively define a point in time when a civilizaiton ends and becomes a culture, and also because it arbitrarily sever modern Maya from their past). And even if it is possible I dont think it can be done without describing the way that the civilization relates to the culture. I understand the length problems, but I would never personally prefer a short article to a comprehensive one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not for me to define cultures and civilizations, and the relationship between the two; however, once the area was incorporated into the Spanish Empire, many of the definining elements of the Maya civilization either disappeared altogether, went underground, or were merged with European cultural elements. I don't think there will be many sources at all that refer to the Maya civilization continuing after the Spanish conquest. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you can be pretty sure that many Maya would disagree and state that Maya civilization is what they live and breathe every day. When I said "how the civilization relates to the culture" I didnt mean that you should try to elaborate on the differences between those two concepts, but describe which cultural aspects of the civilization live on in contemporary Maya culture.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will put together a section - it shouldn't be too difficult. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to say that though the distinction between a culture and a civilization may always be rather "problematic", that does not mean it should not be made. In fact it is probably easier to do so with the Maya than almost any other large culture, because the collapse(s) was/were apparently very dramatic, and also because our sources about the long immediately succeeding periods are so very slim in comparison. The article title is "Maya civilization" and I think it should mainly stick to what it says on the tin. It would be highly undesirable to largely skip nearly 1,000 years and have a lot on the post-conquest culture that we know a lot about, as though that were the same subject. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I disagree. It would not have to "skip 1000 years" for one - it would of course include the 500 years from the conquest to now - and suggesting that the sources about the intermediate period is slim is simply wrong. These are exactly the misconceptions that the article should dispell if it wants to convey a contemporary understanding of the Maya and their civilization.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't think you would agree. It's strange how this sort of approach, so popular in the 19th century regarding Europe, and so totally discredited now, seems to persist in anthropology when it comes to the Global South. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont even understand what you mean by that. You have it backward it seems, and in general seem not to have much idea about anthropology. The idea of "civilization" is a 19th century concept that Europeans have used to hierarchically order peoples in the global south as being on a lower stage of development. That is why anthropologists tend not to use it. Just like Danes can claim continuation from the Vikings and the Moden greeks from Greek civilization - today then obviously the millions of contmeporary Maya can claim cultural continuity from their pre-conquest ancestors. To arbitrarily set a cut off point where the "civilization" suddenly becomes a culture is a 19th century silly idea, that has no backing in contemporary scholarship whether in anthropology or in any other discipline. It is your misconception about long hiatus periods that is counterfactual and which the article needs to clearly debunk because it is the most common misconception about the Maya.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Danes can claim continuation from the Vikings and the Modern greeks from Greek civilization" are two excellent examples of the discredited approach I referred to, with the Anglo-Saxons and modern Britain a third. It was the Nazis who really put the stake in the heart of that sort of stuff. By the way, don't tell a Dane he is descended from Vikings - they may get very upset. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to try not to lecture Danes about what Danes think. Danes like me are generally proud of the Danish Viking past, and it is integrated in almost all aspects of Danish national identity. The same for Greeks. So yes, it is discredited as an expression of historical fact, largely thanks to anthropologists who have repeatedly questioned is correspondence with historical reality. And it is of course anthropologists who have played the major role in exposing the fallacies of nationalist ideologies in general. But the fact of historical continuation and the claim of it are two different things. And just as English people happily claim Alfred the Great as their nations founder, so do every body else with their National symbols - regardless of whether that relation is historically factual. Denying the ability to politically claim their history only to colonized peoples is hypocritical and contrary to how anyone writes history of the peoples of the global south today, and hence contrary to how we should write history today on wikipedia. You will not find a book about the Maya written since 1980s that do not emphasize the continuity with contemporary Maya and the fact that Maya civilization never dissappeared. Contemporary Mayas are the stewards and proprietors of the Maya civilization, just as the Greek Nation are of the Greek Civilization, The Egyptian Nation of the Egyptian Civilization. The fact that the Maya happened to be conquered at one point in history and have spent the last 500 years as part of colonial states changes nothing of this.[this response has been edited after editconflict with response below, main meaning has not been changed]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Actually, and rightly or wrongly, very few British people would "claim Alfred the great as their nations founder", happily or not, and many would not have heard of him at all. But I don't think there is much to be gained by continuing this. It would be nice if you or others could join in restoring "Viking" to WP's articles, after the attempted mass-removal of the word, which the admins have completely failed to do anything about. Of course that was actually by a Swede. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right it leads nowhere. I dont really understand why you have taken up a habit of taking swings against me and anthropology as a discipline whenever our paths cross on wiki lately. It is not very productive. s for Vikings, I may descend from one, but I dont generally edit Nordic history articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is important that the article remain focused on the pre-Columbian Maya - the modern Maya is a theme for another article, such as Maya peoples or Maya society (which currently contains ancient Maya society, and should probably be moved). However, I will put in a short section stressing the continuity of Maya culture. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree of course that the focus should be on the pre-columbian tradition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Short section added. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Maya are the only precolumbian people for whom we have access to written historical sources, and correspondingly we have actual historical knowledge about Maya rulers as individuals, and about political relations in their own words. Could we imagine writing about Roman civilization without mentioning specific rulers by name and describing their political achievements? In the history section here, the only named individual in the running text is David Stuart. The only mentioned Maya individual in the history section is K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat (no mention of his period of rulership, which would serve to give him life as a historical figure), in a picture caption. No Pacal, No Siyaj K'ak, No Spearthrower Owl, or Yax k'uk Mo, no Lady Xok etc. The representation of history is anonymized and described as a process without actors (the cities themselves are given agency), which I think reinforces antiquated stereotypes of the Maya as an anonymous "lost civilization" with no "real" history. (Jasaw Chan Kawiil is mentioned twice, but not in the history section, and Taj Chan Ahjk is mentioned in the writing section). I also think some examples of how Maya texts record historical events, such as conquests would be needed in the history section, where illustrations are focused only on temple structures and archeological non-textual remains.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct of course - Siyaj K'ak, Y'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat, Uaxackajun Ub'aah Kawiil, Yax Nuun Ayiin etc. can certainly be worked into the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added some names and dated events, more to follow. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Maya civilization is described in a vacuum, with little description of the wider Mesoamerican context, their predecessors and contemporaries with whom they shared cultural patterns and trade and political relations. I think this can be addressed simultaneously with my first point, for example by making a "Cultural background" section - where the ethno-linguistic, cultural and historical makeup of Mesoamerica is presented and the Maya are situated within that larger framework. That would also be a place where the cultivation of Maize, as suggested by Johnbod, could be addressed, and where the continuity between ancient and contemporary cultures can be emphasized.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a section briefly summarising Mesoamerica. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is a little too short (and that the geography section is correspondingly too long and detailed). I think this would be a good section in which to point out that Maya civilization = civilization of Maya peoples, and that Maya peoples = people who speak Mayan languages. And if I were you I would integrate the short "language" section into the "Mesoamerica" section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will expand it some, but this is an article about the Maya; I don't think it should branch out too much - full detail should be available in the Mesoamerica article. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, I think that it should not so much be about "Mesoamerica" in general, but about "Mesoamerica and the Maya", i.e. drawing out the specific relations between the Mesoamerican culture area and the Maya civilization. For example speakers of Mayan languages are assumed to have participated in the Mesoamerican culture area since its beginning, not necessarily being the first to cultivate maize or build a pyramid - but they definitely participated in the networks of knowledge and trade through which those innovations spread in the earliest period. And they have continuously been receiving and sending goods and ideas from other areas of Mesoamerica - so mentioning some of the elements the maya share with the rest of Mesoamerica (ball courts, vigesimal numerals, calendar, sacrifice, political organization etc.) as well as the areas where they stand out, might be a good thing to have in that section. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The "rediscovery" section is both weirdly placed, and, I think, badly named. It suggests again, that Maya civilization was lost untill white people came and "rediscovered" it. Maya civilization of course was alive and well at the conquest, with thriving cities. And the ruins, though some were admittedly forgotten, played an active part in the way that Maya understood, and continue to understand their past. I think this section should be refocused to be not about "rediscovery" but about scientific study. And it probaly also should be moved up to right after the history section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I probably inherited this section title and position from the pre-existing article. I'll see what I can do with it. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved and renamed. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the writing section is good, but I think it should give a basic idea of how the script works particularly focusing on the fact that it records Mayan languages that we can actually read. In contrast I think it focuses a bit too much on the mechanics of writing, which could be shortened. At least one example of a glyphic texts with its transliteration and translation I think is necessary. Other places where glyphic text might be good illustrations is where you mention the Maya words Kalomte, k'uhul Ajaw - which are of course extremely frequently occuring glyphs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a section describing reading order etc. I'll add an inscription and translation, as soon as I can find a decent photo on Commons corresponding to a sourced block-by-block transcription. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I think that an analytical line drawing would be better than a photo of an actual inscription. To my great surprise there isn't even one of those at our article on the script. Perhaps we could get one made in svg at the graphics lab. The standard example is the differnt ways to write "b'alam" with a logogram, with syllabograms and with combination of the logogram with syllabograms as phonetic complements. For example found at page 24-25 in this pdf. I am sure the graphic artists at the graphics lab could make svg examples of these examples. I've taken the liberty of requesting them at the graphics lab.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the glyphs to the section. If we want to condense more I think it is also a section that could be considerably shortened to a sinle section without subsections. I would suggest moving the entire sections about scribes and writing tools to the main article on Maya writing, and summarize them each in a single sentence. I could condense the section a little more by removing what I think is superfluous sentences if requested by the nominator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * About Images: I think the lead should not have two images of monumental architecture, it would be better if one of them depicted some other cultural form. I think a hieroglyphic text would be good, but it could also be a vase or a flint or a stucco detail. The atlatl photo is terrible and doesnt provide any information - I would remove it. The Maize photo is also quite poor, and I think a different more aesthetically pleasing photo of corn should be easy to find.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I kind of liked the maize photo, because it showed diffent colours of maize... Simon Burchell (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sure we can find one where the maize is better in focus and doesnt look like its been eaten by gorgojo. I'll look around.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've switched the image. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I also swapped the lead image of Palenque for detail from a Yaxchilan lintel. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Support from Singora Singora (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. Could "exhaustion of agricultural potential" be re-worded to something like "depleted agricultural resources"?
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 2. I note that the author of this article also wrote two of the very best Featured Articles on Wikipedia, Spanish conquest of Guatemala and Olmec colossal heads. His article about Quirigua is also good.
 * Thank you! Simon Burchell (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me add a bit of credibility by saying I visited the Mayan world about 25 years ago. I flew from London to Miami and then took a Mexicana flight to Cancun. I remember seeing Chichen Itza early in the morning when the site abounded with giant lizards; I saw Uxmal and climbed the pyramid of the magician; I took a bus down to Belize and checked out a Mayan complex near the Guatemalan border. Tikal was good, but better was a little known site called (I think) Ceibal. I got to Quirigua when it was pouring with rain, but found the site really interesting. Copan in Honduras was good, but maybe a bit "over restored". I then headed back into Guatemala and saw a small Mayan complex near the Mexian border (can't remember the name), and then continued north to Mexico City. Teotihuacan was impressive; much better was Tula -- the lost city of the Toltecs! Singora (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

 * Due to the sheer size of the article, it may take a little while for my review to finish, so comments will come gradually. I've recently read some old books about ancient American civilizations, so will be good to get some updated info... FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "which covers a region that spreads from northern Mexico southwards into Central America,[1] covering an area of approximately" Isn't the second "covering" redundant here?
 * Fixed. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Mesoamerican Nuclear Area" hat is meant by this?
 * I've dropped the phrase - a quick search found very limited use of the term, and no definition. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Maya artists apparently painted murals at Cacaxtla" Why apparently?
 * I've clarified this - more recent research prefers a strong Maya influence over direct painting by Maya artists. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Somewhat related to the discussion below, I find it a bit puzzling why we need to know both which Mexican states were part of the Maya territory and what Mexican states are located on the Yucatan peninsula? Isn't the latter listing redundant/overdetailed? Perhaps say something like "Apart from/outside Mexico/the Mexican states, the Yucatan peninsula incorporates most of the Guatemalan department of Petén, and all of Belize." Or just say that Yucatan incorporates parts of Mexico, Guatemala, and all of Belize.
 * I've trimmed down the geography section. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a matter of taste, but under Weapons, I'd prefer to see a depiction of an actual Maya weapon, instead of some random modern person playing around with a replica. No images of swords or stuff like that? This free image, for example, seems to show a warrior in costume and with a spear or sword: https://www.flickr.com/photos/arnybo/3429873387/
 * A photo of the same object was already on Commons; I've swapped it in. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, not bad to have more of this fantastic artwork either. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "n the Postclassic, the Maya engaged in a flourishing slave trade.[211]" With who?
 * Slaves were traded across Mesoamerica, I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Maya stelae is not linked until the art section, though stelae are mentioned many times prior to this.
 * It is first linked from the lead, and linked again from art. Does it need more than this? Simon Burchell (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The MOS recommendation (policy?) seems to be that after the intro, a word should only be linked at first occurrence. But well, not a show stopper for me at least. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It seemed more apt linking from the section actually dealing with stelae... Simon Burchell (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Bone, both human and animal, was also sculpted" It this the correct way to put it? I assume you mean sculptures were made from bone, but now it could read like they made sculptures that depicted bones...
 * Techically this is no problem, & I didn't feel a problem reading it. Might "carved" reduce any concerns? Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's correct use, no problem. I'm not a native English speaker. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Under writing system we get: "The Catholic Church and colonial officials destroyed Maya texts wherever they found them, and with them the knowledge of Maya writing, but by chance three uncontested pre-Columbian books dated to the Postclassic period have been preserved. These are known as the Madrid Codex, the Dresden Codex and the Paris Codex.[329]" And then again in the very next section, we get: "Shortly after the conquest, all of the codices which could be found were ordered to be burnt and destroyed by zealous Spanish priests, notably Bishop Diego de Landa.[340] Only a few reasonably intact examples of Maya codices are known to have survived through to the present day, including the Madrid, Dresden, and Paris codices.[329]" Seems these two paragraphs should be merged.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I see there is a Women in Maya society article, but there is little mention of their role under the Society section here, left me wondering a bit (though I see there are some mentions scattered in other sections). Perhaps a single extra sentence or paragraph would be enough to cover it.
 * Support - I'm sure the length issue will be dealt with through the discussion below. But in my opinion, it is just a matter of taste, I don't see any "objective" arguments for why shorter should necessarily be better. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review, and for the support. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs
Oppose solely on the basis of size. Huge kudos to you for tackling such a large article. I learned a great deal from reading it. The biggest issue I have is that this article is crazy long. I understand that as a larger topic, but this would be the longest FA ever passed (several thousand words larger than Byzantine Empire). I think there is much more room for summary style, which may mean that one or more child articles still need to be created. I only got as far as Warfare, but here are a few suggestions for cutting.
 * There's repetition in the Mesoamerican section and the rest of the article. I wonder if the entire second paragraph (or most of it) can go.
 * This section was added at the request Maunus - see above - whether it stays or goes will have to be decided between you. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the information is necessary, but that it could probably be conveyed more concisely. I think it should be possible for example to comnbine the Mesoamerica and Geography sections into a short section of two paragraphs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we need quite so much detail in the Geography section? Unless the geography has changed from then to now, I don't see that this is that useful beyond the first paragraph and a second paragraph that just mentions the amount of coastline and the differing types of landscape.  I don't believe we need the details of this region and that region in this article.
 * I've cut out a lot of the detail. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you put year ranges in the headings for the different periods? I kept having to refer back to the table.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Most articles like this have a "History of " child article, which summarizes the different periods. This article does not.  I wonder if it would be worthwhile to use what you have in the current history section to seed a History of the Maya civilization article, and perhaps make the history section in this article a little shorter.
 * While I agree that a child article should be created, what is here is already a brief summary of Maya history (it was briefer, but Maunus requested more specific detail, with good reason, see above). Simon Burchell (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that my requests for more specificity and inclusion of Maya rulers as agents could be accommodated while also shortening the section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've shortened the History section. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of interesting details in the article (such as the sentences on the rituals surrounding the king/prince), but I wonder if this overview article is the appropriate place for them.
 * The Classic Maya civilization was centred upon divine kingship, so the article would be lacking without this, which could be covered in much more detail in a subarticle. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In the King and court section, I'd get rid of a lot of the definitions of different words. A paragraph discussing the loose hierarchy could be a lot shorter than what is currently in the article
 * I think they are necessary in an overview of the civilization. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there are too many images in the article. It's a bit distracting.
 * A comment to the last point, I strongly disagree that there are too many images. Without the images, it would be harder to follow the text. They break up the wall of text, give the reader something to relate to/context, and they are not cluttered. I somewhat agree about summarising parts, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Funk Monk. One could argue for more of them - there is no image in the religion section, which is a bit odd. Personally I don't care for the multiple image template that has suddenly become fashionable, but the use here is far more restrained than in some other articles on this page. On size, I agree the article is long, & I wonder if any of us have read it all in one go - I certainly didn't. But this is an encyclopedia dammit, articles are supposed to be long and in places boring! This is a big core topic, and the magazine-ish approach we can take on many smaller topics isn't appropriate. Some of your specific points may have merit. As a further suggestion, I asked for a museum section, & have certainly got one. But since this adds some 5K, can I suggest it is relocated to Maya art, with just a sentence with a link here? I also note that the architecture section here is longer than the "main article" Maya architecture, and with less overlap than one might think. I think some of the content here might go there instead. I also note we don't have History of the Maya civilization or anything similar. Floating that off & replacing with a shorter summary would lose many K. Just thoughts.  Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree, there are not too many images at all. This topic requires a high degree of visual support and is the better for having it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First response - since the FAC started, four sections (at a glance) were added as a response to reviewer requests, suggesting that, while the article is long, it is not too long considering the level of the topic. I will shorten the Geography section, which is probably overly detailed, and will move off much of the museums section as suggested. Note that the individual sections are already concise summaries of broad topics, and should not really be condensed more, and they should not be judged by the poor quality of currently existing subtopic articles (for example, there is more here on Maya astronomy than in the Maya astronomy article). The architecture section really contains the bare minimum that it should cover as an introduction - the regional styles are frequently mentioned in the literature, and should stay. I disagree that there are too many images, which are carefully spaced and selected to illustrate the article - when I first came to the article there were galleries, which I stripped out. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In general I disagree that the length should be considered a major problem. As Johnbod says this is an encyclopedia, and it is supposed to be informative not entertaining. As long as length is justified by the actual informational content (i.e. not repetitive or redundant, not going off-topic, or overly wordy) I see nothing to be gained by simply shortening it to be readable in a single sitting. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that it is so long, actually 15% longer than the longest FA previously promoted, is a sign that summary style is not being used appropriately. There may very well have been more information that needed to be added, which means either a) there were gaps in the coverage or b) parts of the article were too detailed which means the parts that weren't looked uncomprehensive, and, thus, reviewers asked for me.  I think in this case it was a combination of the two.  A good direct comparison is Byzantine Empire, an FA which is several thousand words shorter. Karanacs (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In particularly broad articles excessive use of summary style makes for an article that is fluffy and full of empty, vague statements, but with little of the actual hard information that readers are likely to be looking for. It is not a service to readers to write vacuous articles that provide links to articles where they may or may not find the information they are looking for. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but also that it is too long. I would rather see specific areas cut (floated off) in chunks (I've suggested some above) than the whole article slimmed down pro rata. That is also less work. Creating a "history of" article seems the easiest way, and perhaps the best. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the history section is what would be more beneficious to cut. I would combine the Mesoamerica+Geography into a single paragraph section, Politics+Society+Warfare+Trade+Agriculture into a single section with single paragraph subsections, shorten Writing and Literacy into a single section with no subsections, and combine calendar+astronomy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it is a matter of taste, but I agree with Johnbod, the history section goes into extreme detail (the hardest section for me to get through when reading the article), and I just don't see how the other sections should be cut in favour of that, this would basically just be a history of the Maya civilisation article as a result. If anything has to be cut (which may not be necessary), I support a history article being split off and summarising it here, that would be more balanced. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of options in how it can be better streamlined. I don't have a particular preference, although I think that several of the ideas floated make sense.  The point is that there are places where cuts could be made and places where they shouldn't.  I'll rely on Simon's expertise to figure out which data falls into which bucket. Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Having created a History of the Maya civilization article, I see now that the History section is too detailed for the article (it looks almost like a complete article in its own right). I am working at trimming it down, while still leaving a few specific events related to the Tikal-Calakmul struggle. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: This has now come down from a peak crude size (per edit history) of 213,695 on 12 June to 191,641 now. I note btw that Barack Obama is an FA at 258K crude size. Byzantine Empire is now at 179K, though it was 185-187K until last month. Has enough been done? I think so, though another 5-10K reduction would be ideal. What do others think? User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics unfortunately has not been kept updated, but most articles there seem to have put on weight over the years since.  Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've cut out all the redundant refs, which has dropped the total size by about 8K. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the readable prose size that matters (the larger number includes all the HTML and templates). The Obama article has fewer than 10k words.  FYI, here is the list of Longest FAs as of Nov 2014.  15k words, which is where the article currently stands, would still be the longest FA ever passed.  I haven't read through again since the changes started to be implemented.  Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that, according to the linked list, Manhattan Project Passed FAC 2011 with 15,227 words. Maya civilization currently stands at 15183, so wouldn't be setting any precedent. Manhattan Project was the first on the list, but the list isn't ordered by size, so there are probably other, longer, articles. (just had a quick look, Elvis Presley was also longer).  Simon Burchell (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe this has been dealt with. I've posted to Karanacs diff, and am awaiting a response. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "This region consists of the northern lowlands, encompassing the Yucatán Peninsula, the highlands of the Sierra Madre," 1. Lowlands of what? 2. Is it 'the lowlands encompassing (the peninsula and the highlands)' (which sounds odd) or (the lowlands encompassing the peninsula), and the highlands?
 * The lowlands encompass the Yucatán Peninsula, I've shifted the punctuation. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Preclassic period saw the establishment of the first sedentary communities in the Maya region" 1. As this is the first mention of the preclassic I would add (c.2000 BC to 250 AD). 2. You say it saw the first sedentary communities, but Sharer and Traxler p. 98 say that in the archaic period there were "Settled communities and agriculture". 3. I was going to suggest that you should link somewhere to the article on the archaic Maya, but there does not seem to be one!
 * I've clarified this, both in the lead, and in the intro to the History section. In the absence of an article on the Archaic, I've linked to the appropriate subsection of Mesoamerican chronology. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Human sacrifice should be mentioned in the lead as it was an important part of Maya culture.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "cardinal directions" - it would be helpful to link this.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Forming a language area Mesoamerican languages share a number of important features, including widespread loanwords, and use of a vigesimal number system." This could be more clearly expressed, e.g. "Mesoamerican languages form a language area which share a number of important features, including widespread loanwords, and use of a vigesimal (base 20) number system."
 * Rephrased. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "In an extraordinary act of treachery for someone claiming to be of the Tikal royal family, he thereafter served as a loyal ally of Calakmul" I would delete "extraordinary act of treachery" as POV.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Its Classic-period dynasty was founded in 426 by K'inich Yax K'uk' Mo'. The new king " New king implies a previous one but you say he was the first.
 * He was the first king of the new dynasty. There was apparently an earlier series of kings, but very little is known about them. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Further comments
 * "This model of rulership was poorly structured to respond to changes, with the ruler's freedom of action being limited to traditional responses. The rulers reacted in their culturally-bound manner, by intensifying such activities as construction, ritual, and warfare. This was counterproductive and only served to exacerbate systemic problems.[" This is a bit vague. What changes and systemic problems, and what did rulers fail to do?
 * I think that shortening the section has removed some of the context - I'll see if I can fill some back in. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Activity shifted to the northern lowlands and the Maya Highlands" I think it is worth pointing out that major northern Yucatan polities such as Uxmal were only founded in the postclassic period.
 * Hmm. Sharer and Traxler p536 is clear that Uxmal reached its height in the Late Classic, and was inhabited for an unknown length of time before that. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have misread them. They say Terminal Classic, 800-1000. On p. 534: "These new Puuc cities, such as Uxmal, Kabah, Sayil, Labna and others, were founded, grew, prospered, and ultimately declined over the relatively brief interval of about two hundred years during the Terminal Classic period."
 * Terminal Classic is still Classic, not Postclassic... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I should have said: I think it is worth pointing out that major northern Yucatan polities such as Uxmal were only founded in the Terminal Classic period. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just checked against several sources, and Uxmal predates the Terminal Classic - Sharer and Traxler above, as cited, but also Demarest 2004, p. 236. has "...lowland Classic Maya civilization began to flourish in the seventh and eighth centuries in the Puuc hill zone...by the eighth century many sites in this region, such as Oxkintok, Uxmal, Sayil, and Edzna..." - this firmly places Uxmal in the Late Classic, as does Foster 2002, in her summary of the Late Classic on p. 49 "From Palenque in the west and Copán in the east to Uxmal in the north..." Simon Burchell (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, check out Andrews 1984 - on the political geography of Yucatán - "there is good reason to believe that many of the provinces existed before the founding of Mayapán, in the mid-twelfth century. They may have evolved out of earlier polities of the Classic period." Simon Burchell (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "The agents of the Catholic Church" What agents? Not priests?
 * Not necessarily - also monks, converted natives etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * " the capture and humiliation of enemy warriors played an important part in elite culture" Perhaps "the humiliation and execution of captured enemy warriors"
 * It appears that they were not always executed - they could be enslaved, for example, or be forced to switch allegiance. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "There is some evidence from the Classic period that women providing supporting roles in war, but they did not act as military officers with the exception of those rare ruling queens.[159] By the Postclassic, there is some evidence from native chronicles that women occasionally fought in battle.[" Repetition of "some evidence". Also presumably "provided" rather than "providing".
 * Fixed. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Although the majority of Maya ballcourts date originally to the Classic period" What does "originally" mean here?
 * It means that they the majority don't date as far back as the Preclassic. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the word "originally" is superfluous. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's gone. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Chenes style is very similar to the Puuc style," If you define it in relation to Puuc, it would be better to list Puuc first.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "By about AD 250, the Maya script had adopted a more formalised and consistent writing system.[283]" perhaps "had become a more formalized"
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "The bar-and-dot counting system that is the base of Maya numerals was in use in Mesoamerica by 1000 BC;[309] the Maya adopted it by the Late Postclassic" Do you mean pre-classic? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops. You are quite right of course. I've fixed it. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Congratulations on a first-rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, and for your support. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note -- I didn't spot an image licensing check or a source review for formatting reliability above; you can post a request at the top of WT:FAC for those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now posted. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from RO

 * Support I think this is a perfect example of an article that deserves an exception to our guidelines regarding size. The topic is massive, and reviewers here have pushed for more detail, not less. I think Simon's effort should be applauded and supported without asking him to fit 10 pounds of grain into a 5 pound sack. Having said that, I think there might be some room for summary and farming out of material to sub-articles (I'd suggest architecture and writing), but to engage in that here would be to introduce instability to an otherwise stable and well written article. I'd greatly prefer to see CE and BCE instead of BC and AD, but I think that's within the realm of editor discretion. This is fine piece of work, Simon. Thanks for all your hard work! RO (talk)  16:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Maky
Most images look good. There are a few issues, though:
 * File:Mayamap.png – No source is given for the information on the map, either in the original or in this derived image. A citation in the "source" section of an information box (which this image needs) would be good.  In general, I suggest cleaning up the Commons page for any image used in a FAC.
 * I've added supporting references. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the information template to clean it up. – Maky  « talk » 05:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Maya civilization location map - geography.svg – This derivative needs sourcing for the naming of rivers and geographical features (again, in the "source" section).
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:El Mirador 5.jpg – The description could be more explicit. Also, the license on Flickr didn't match that on Commons, so I added the template "Flickr-change-of-license".  The licensing was also duplicated, so I cleaned it up for you.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Calakmul - Structure I.jpg – I've also cleaned this one up, but the file history on it seems odd. It seems like a bot uploaded a different image from enWiki, and then a user overwrote it with a different image.  I'm not sure if that causes any problems, though.  It's too bad the user didn't clarify his actions in the comments when uploading.
 * That is strange, but the uploader also put in their own license etc., so I don't think there is any problem - it seems it is just using the same filename. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Lienzo de Tlaxcala Iximche.gif – PNG is superior to GIF, so it's probably best to convert it. However, there may be other issues. This is obviously a scan of an existing work, and all the source says is "Lienzo de Tlaxcala". Is that a book, and if so, how old is it?  Things can get touchy if the redrawn art is copyrighted.  The image that we have on Commons would have to be drawn from the original, I believe.
 * The Lienzo de Tlaxcala was a painted book produced by Nahua allies of the Spanish in the 16th century. This copy is taken from an 1892 reproduction (as noted in the description) - in any case, both old enough to be out of copyright. The superiority of PNG over GIF seems to be on colour depth; since the image is black and white, and fairly low-res, there seems little to be gained from converting it. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Castillo Maler.jpg – The source "own archive" sounds sketchy. What proof is there that this photo was published in 1892 and where exactly did it come from?
 * Own archive refers to Teobert Maler's archive at the Peabody Museum, I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Uxmal nunnery by Catherwood 02.jpg – This Commons page needs a lot of clean up, with proper headings and templates. Also, a proper citation is needed for the source.
 * I've sourced this and tidied up the page. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this source available online? Did you scan it yourself?  A full citation should be provided. –  Maky  « talk » 05:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't do it - I've given a full citation though, and linked to this page at Reed College (where it is illustration 14), Portland, Oregon, written by Charles S. Rhyne, Professor Emeritus of Art History, which I would count as a reliable source. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:British Museum Mesoamerica 004.jpg – Please add a proper description. This is not a photo of the "British Museum, London".
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Comalcalco brick.jpg – This image needs cleaning up, though I'm not sure it can be used. The image has a convoluted history, starting on Flickr, being uploaded to enWiki, and then being transferred to Commons.  However, the Flickr link is dead and there is no template stating that the Flickr license was verified.  If you can find the original, maybe it can be used.  Otherwise, it should probably be deleted from Commons.
 * I've spent too much time trying to find it on Flickr - I've switched it for File:Comalcalco Museo de Sitio 9.JPG Simon Burchell (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Chichén Itzá - Juego de Pelota.jpg – Cleanup, including headings and information template, please.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Mayan Language Migration Map.svg – The "source" needs to also include a citation for the migration dates/geospatial data, as well as the origins of the base map.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Balam 1.svg & File:Balam 2.svg – I'm not sure if you can derive images from copyrighted sources. What about the originals?
 * As far as I can see these images are not copyrightable - these are representations of ancient Maya glyphs, and that would be the equivalent of applying copyright to an individual letter or word. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It may depend on whether or not the tracing was from a flat or 3D surface. I'll give the benefit of a doubt, though. –  Maky  « talk » 05:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Cancuenpanel3.jpg – Information clean-up, please.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Maya Codex-Style Vessel with two scenes 3 Kimbell.jpg – References a broken link.
 * Fixed. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Maya script reading direction.png – Many problems here... For starters, the original simply claims the source is enWiki.  Second, there's a note under summary saying that the reading order depicted in the image is incorrect... something which needs verification.  The image is also very low resolution given the higher quality of its source, so a new one should be made (if the first two points don't mean the image needs to be deleted).  Lastly, an information box needs to be added to the summary to clean things up.
 * The inscription used is apparently a portion of a larger inscription (i.e. the reading would have continued off the photo). Since the inscription is illegible, it it pretty much irrelevant. For illustrative purposes, the reading order given would be correct if the inscription only consisted of the glyphs visible in the photo. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Either way, the page needs cleaned up and the comment should be moved to the talk page (and replied to). – Maky  « talk » 05:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tidied and clarified. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Madrid Codex astronomer.png – What is the source for this? Given all the other material uploaded by the person responsible for this image, I'm surprised its resolution is so low.  It makes me wonder if it was lifted from another source.  Anyway, if it's from the uploader's own photo, the infobox needs to be corrected.
 * This is cut down from a much larger photo of the Madrid Codex - it is actually a tiny detail on the page, hence the low resolution. The original work is by an unknown Maya artist, so hardly my own work. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the long list, but there were a lot of illustrations in the article. Hopefully you can get these cleaned up without too much of an impact on the article. – Maky  « talk » 20:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the image review - I believe I have responded to everything. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Images are in good order. As long as the sources and the text check out, this article has my support. –  Maky  « talk » 18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Maky - I greatly appreciate the time you took to look into all the images in the article, and the tidying up you did over at Commons. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Source check by MONGO

 * Support promotion to Featured Article. I've spent the past three hours reading and checking information against what I can find on the web and see no discrepancies. I am unable to find any standout MOS violations. A few image captions are nearly sentence length which means they may need a period. I noticed what appeared to be unnecessary links like to "dog" but that's just piping which leads to the details on Dogs in Mesoamerica. Yes, a quite longish article, especially for FA, but I've produced FAs that exceed 100k bytes and have fewer images so this isn't a deal breaker and of course we have to have one article that has the most bytes. Excellent effort and an educational read. Thank you.--MONGO 21:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks MONGO - I appreciate that checking sources on this article was a mammoth task, thanks for taking the time and effort. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a note - I have added full stops to image captions where appropriate. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment
Tks everyone, I think we're done here now. I note the outstanding oppose on the grounds of size but see that the article has shrunk almost 30MB since then, and is shorter than our largest FAs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.