Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maya stelae/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 SandyGeorgia 00:24, 17 January 2011.

Maya stelae

 * Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Maya stelae are considered one of the key markers of Classic Period Maya culture. I created this article from scratch a few months ago, it recently passed GA and am now throwing it up for FA review to further improve it. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is very strong, but over cited in that there are instances of consecutive sentences with blue cites back to the same source same page number. Thats probably not needed, the last one will do fine. Will read closer fairly soon, and good luck. Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I find that when cites are placed at the end of paragraphs, the risk is that someone inserts unref'd material that is then wrongly attributed to that cite. However, I also understand that it does produce a certain amount of clutter - I'll remove the extra cites if you insist... Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No wories, I do the same when building so that when things are shifted about, I can track back to the source. But once its more or less there and the structure is stable there its prob best to trim down. No biggie though. Any issues if I trim them as I read through. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Be my guest... Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now trimmed down those consecutive identical refs, except where that ref falls after punctuation within a sentence, where I've left it for clarity. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Images All images have appropriate licenses. I'm not clear why some, but not all, of Simon Burchell's images have OTRS tickets, but I don't have an OTRS account. It needs to be made clear on the file date for File:Maya-Maske.jpg that user:Xenophon and Wolfgang Sauber are the same person (It says so on his Commons user page, but not on the file page)  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of my images have previously been published on webshots before I put them on Commons, hence the OTRS tickets for some of the images. I have put Xenophon's username by the author credit on the Commons image page. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Inconsistent referencing lots of problem
 * in consecutive references (Borowitz and Clark) we have "Austin" and "Austin, Texas, USA". Also "University of Texas Press" and "University of Texas".
 * A document produced online by the University of Texas, is not the same as a print publication that has the University of Texas Press as its publisher, hence the difference. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "London" and "New York", but "Paris, France"
 * Changed all instances. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * not all, the other Cambridge?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Massachusetts one? - I've just dropped in a "USA". Simon Burchell (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * s ome publisher locations are just countries, surely they must have a city?
 * A web source does not always give its physical location, and may be produced by a network without a central location. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "California" and "CA" both occur (abbreviating states is bad practice anyway).
 * I've fixed this. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Oxford", but "Cambridge, UK"
 * Changed to Oxford, UK. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like the capitalised authors (How does this fit with MoS?), and it's not consistent. In the Fash ref, the chapter authors are capped, but not the book authors.
 * This caps style of referencing is widely used within WikiProject Mesoamerica articles (including FAs). In the Fash ref, the authors are capitalised, while the volume editors are not. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's now preferred for non-English publication to use the "language = " template parameter rather than the "icon" style
 * I've not heard that, and I've not had any problems previously. I do remember (vaguely) there was a proposal to delete the icon template but the consensus was to keep it. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the language= parameter is preferred; in fact, I dislike it, as the icons make it easier to scan the citations to see how many non-English sources are used. I place them at the beginning of the citation. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need to follow US states with "USA"
 * Well, if we're being consistent, all locations should be followed by the country. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wernecke is an online version of a real document, doesn't need retrieval date. Also Coggins, several others. Why is Morales marked as a PDF online publication, but not the other pdfs? All or none please
 * I've dropped in PDF after all of them. As for the access date, I was working from the online version, so I've given the date the online version was accessed.Simon Burchell (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? If it's the on-line version of a real publication, it's not likely to change  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in chapter of book type refs, the book authors are sometimes first name surname, sometimes surname, first name
 * Generally the first author is given as "Surname, First name" and all other authors are given as "first name surname". This is not only consistent, it is standard practice - dig out any reference book and the chances are this is how the authors will be listed. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've missed my point: Braswell, Geoffrey, but Vernon Scarborough
 * Sorry, didn't see that - I've fixed it in the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Stelae have become threatened in modern times by plundering for sale on the international art market &mdash; I can't see how a 38-year old source is appropriate. Need a much more up-to-date source for current situation
 * This seems to be the only in-depth treatment of the subject, and is relevant even if only for historical reasons. I looked at Google Scholar and one other general doc on archaeological looting did come up at HeinOnline, subscription only - I've just posted a resource request and will see what comes back. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Coggins is relevant, but needs some sort of updating  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now got a new source via the resource request page, hope to update the looting section today or tomorrow. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the source is more recent, but still refers to the 1970s. However, I've expanded the section with the available info. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've dropped in a short paragraph at the end of the looting section, based on a recently published book. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

These are just a selection of problems, please go through and check each reference for consistency of formatting  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  15:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I've gone through the locations and edited them for consistency. Sometimes a web source does not give a physical location and may represent a network, however I've done the best I can. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've struck some, commented further on others, and left a couple unstruck so that those more knowledgeable about MoS than me can comment. If I can, I'll do a full review, but it may not be until after Christmas  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking the time to look at this stuff (and for removing that "Oppose"!). Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that we are sorted as far as possible with images and refs. I can't say I like having the country in location refs, but at least it's consistent. Only unstruck are the ones where I would welcome a second opinion. I suppose I'd better actually read the text next (:  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks good to me so far - (I need to keep reading), two questions arise initially - size and scale of the pieces - and this probably should have a link to Funerary art which doesn't include specific mention or analysis of these Stelae ...Modernist (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When I have a chance I'll put in some dimensions. A link to Funerary Art would not be appropriate - these aren't funerary monuments. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 *  Strong Oppose  - I disagree - The Maya Stelae seem to be the very definition of Funerary art, , , they are clearly art and they often are connected to the death of kings et al. and their tombs...Modernist (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * These stelae were erected while the king was still alive in an apparent effort to project his power. Although they were sometimes the focus of later ritual activity, their primary purpose was not a funerary one. I've quickly scanned your links and none of them seem to refer to Maya stelae in a funerary context - indeed, I would be very surprised if they did. They were not erected over royal tombs or to commemorate the dead, except to link a living king with a powerful ancestor, in which case the living king is the primary focus. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Try this, and this evidence of tombs - from p. 326 ...Modernist (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't do it either. The stela depicted in the article was raised by a living king to celebrate a ceremony he had performed, as is the case with most stelae. The fact that the looters were specifically pillaging tombs doesn't make any stela that they also looted a funerary monument - Maya stelae were not funerary monuments. The book you linked also makes no mention of stelae as funerary monuments. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They have been looted from tombs; clearly they have been found in tombs, sorry but I cannot support your article. They are found in tombs; and you say the living kings erected them, and apparently they were in cases reset to accompany a tomb of a dead king, then they were looted from tombs and yet your article makes no mention of any of this...Modernist (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They were not looted from tombs - please clearly reference any claim that they were. Stelae are found standing in plazas, or lying broken on plaza floors. I cannot think of a single instance where a stela was extracted from a tomb. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After some deep thought I remembered an instance at Takalik Abaj where an early stela was associated with a royal tomb (i.e. erected nearby, it wasn't in the tomb). I've inserted a mention of this into the article - but I still do not feel that this instance is enough to label Maya stelae as funerary art. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They are clearly in some instances commemorative gravestones, memorializing the subject described on the stone, be it a king or the wife of the king or a wealthy noble among other things; and they are in several instances found in and near tombs and tomb sites, and they are prime examples of Mayan sculptural art...Modernist (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never heard that they were commemorative gravestones. A casual glance at the great plaza of Tikal certainly gives the impression of a cemetary with stelae bearing a resemblance to tombstones, but the resemblance is superficial. Maya stelae were erected to celebrate the power and achievements of the living, not commemorate the dead. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So in other words the Great Pyramids of Egypt and their contents were erected after the pharoah died - because he wasn't monumentalizing his 'power and achievements in his own lifetime' - only the Mayan kings did that...Modernist (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, comparison with Egypt isn't particularly relevant, and I'm not in a position to comment upon it in any case. I can only stress that I have read very widely upon the subject and put in an accurate summary of current understanding of Maya stelae. If I had found any reliable reference that described Maya stelae as funerary in nature, I would have included it. I didn't and I haven't. None of the references you linked above mention that Maya stelae were funerary in nature. I have a hard copy of the book you linked, it is a very solid source and doesn't state that Maya stelae are funerary. If you have a clear source that states that they are, please supply it. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I am only seeing an online version and yet the caption on page 308 reads in part: Siyaj Chan K'awiil II lies beneath Str 5D-33-2nd, and his Stela 31 was interred in the rear room of his buried building and more explanation here ...Modernist (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, this particular stela was already mentioned in the article, although not its placement over the tomb. I've now mentioned this placement in the text. It is important to note, however, that this was an accession monument, not a funerary one, even though it was later placed above his tomb. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that the stelae themselves embody and are the essence of the memorialization and commemoration of those that eventually died; not that they were created for or were used exclusively as objects to be entombed. But rather they clearly functioned as the record of the life of those that they memorialized (in some cases as the only record), and they were planted or re-planted near to or within or placed at the entrance to several tombs or rather certain tombs, functioning as funereal objects. However I will re-read the otherwise excellent article again...Modernist (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, possibly I misunderstood you there. If you can think of an appropriate place to link to funerary art, then please do. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Good work...Modernist (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Simon Burchell (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As co-author & FAC co-nom of Funerary art, I don't see a link to it as necessary, though I wouldn't object to one; we thought about including them there but did not for the reasons Simon gives - there may have been discussion on this, I forget. I shall be reviewing this article later. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Not entirely sure why the title is plural, but I don't feel strongly on this.
 * Don't really remember why I put it in plural, just seemed more natural when talking of the subject as a whole. I was possibly influenced by article titles like Mesoamerican pyramids. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is too short, and one obvious lack is a longer generalized description and definition of what they are. One missing word and link is relief which is the basic art history term for such sculptures. Are any not reliefs? If so this should be said somewhere. Nearly all have at least one flat face that is carved, yes? "Many stelae are upright slabs of limestone sculpted on one or both faces" - many illustrated seem to have four faces, though one (Stela 5 somewhere) seems from the photo essentially round with one flat face.  You need to summarize the iconography of the stelae briefly. Can it be said that all or most stelae of the Classic period relate to an individual ruler, or his wife, even if something else is also celebrated?  That seems to be the case from the "Function" section, but it's all a bit wooly. Whatever "lowest common denominator" statements can safely be made need to be included.  A very brief summary of the history section should also be included.
 * Always the damn lead that trips me up! I've expanded it, with a paragraph on changing imagery and a mention that not all stelae were sculpted etc. +mention and link to relief sculpture. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "low circular stones now labelled as altars" - maybe "low circular stones referred to as altars, although their actual function is uncertain".
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Roughly how many survive? This belongs in the lead.
 * Hundreds, possibly thousands, survive in some form or other but I don't seem to have a reference that actually states this. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Found a ref that mentions "hundreds" so I've put it in. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Evidence of this has been found on the causeways themselves, where compaction rollers have been recovered" Don't understand what a "compaction roller" is.
 * Changed it to a simple "where rollers have been recovered" - the source gives "compaction rollers" but I can't find a satisfactory definition anywhere, seems to be the equivalent of just pushing it along on a bunch of logs, so "roller" should suffice. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hammerstones were fashioned from flint and basalt and were used for rounding of the softer rocks ..." (my italics), Generally all sides of a stela were sculpted with human figures and hieroglyphic text, with each side forming a part of a single composition.[48]  "Undecorated stelae in the form of plain slabs or columns of stone are found throughout the Maya region.[5]  These appear never to have been painted or to have been decorated overlaid stucco  sculpture.[49]" This could well be in the lead - see my point above. But what "rounding"?
 * Changed "rounding" to "shaping". Also put some of this into the lead. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok on these so far, except I will return to the lead. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Copán Altar Q. Was this associated with a stela, & should it be linked?
 * Altar Q was a stand-alone monument with no associated stela. It doesn't need to be linked to the text, although I'll put it in a "see also" section. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "It depicts the crowning of Siyaj Chan K'awiil II, with his father hovering above him as a supernatural and is executed in traditional Maya style." Something missing after "supernatural"?
 * The sources tend to use "supernatural" as a noun, not exactly grammatically correct, so I'll add "being". Simon Burchell (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead photo is the only one showing a high-relief standing figure Copan-type stela, but even though pretty large it is hard to read on the page. Commons has several clearer photos, including some of details. The caption should mention it is a particular type.
 * I've switched the lead photo for a more detailed photo, and moved the former lead pic down into the history section. I'm not entirely sure that the new photo is good for the lead - it doesn't give an immediate grasp of what a Maya stela is, so may swap around, moving the Quirigua/Copan double image from the Late Classic section up into the lead, and the new pic down into the Late Classic section. What do you think? Simon Burchell (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How about moving that detailed one to the end of the lead so it is opposite the TOC, where the width is useful? The Peabody image is a nice sharp overall view, especially if cropped of the shrubbery. It also faces into the page. Or File:Stele51CalakmulMuseum.JPG or File:Copan01.jpg. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I really didn't like that pic in the lead, I've shuffled the images a bit. How does it look now? I can always try out your suggestions... Simon Burchell (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I liked that Calakmul photo and have put it into the article. I think I'll now swap it into the lead to replace the Quiriguá photo. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Newsome says in her intro "Mayanists have now established a systematic understanding of what subjects, themes, and symbols appear in stela iconography, recognizing that they portray kings engaged in rituals that require blood sacrifice and result in visionary revelations of the otherworld." Is this like the bloodletting ritual on Yaxchilan Lintel 24? Anyway there is nothing much on this in the article - should there be?
 * Yes, this would be like the Yaxchilan lintels, although most stelae do not seem to depict this. The articles on stelae iconography only make passing mention of bloodletting, and mostly it seems to be described in the hieroglyphic texts rather than pictured. I've put in a sentence mentioning that such sacrifice is referred to in hieroglyphic texts on the stelae, I've also dropped a link to Yaxchilan Lintel 24 into the See also section. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Unesco ref on Quirigua says "Most of the monuments face north, allowing the early morning sun to highlight the relief of the carvings" Is this typical? Should it be mentioned? Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is just chance. Many stelae at Tikal face south onto the plaza, others at Tikal face east and west. Looking through maps of Maya cities, stelae faced in just about any of the cardinal directions. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * More to come Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Fascinating article, with an excellent range of sources. I still don't like Stela H in the lead, but the pics are improved. If it was me I'd probably add a couple of single row galleries at the end of sections and/or split up the paired images, but these are matters of taste. Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I reviewed this above, but did not give an opinion at the time because I'm not familiar with the subject and I wanted to see what others thought. On the basis of the changes made, I'm happy to support now  Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Pedanticisms great article, certainly worthy of FA status, one of these years I really ought to try and get Moai up to this standard. I also liked it that you already had the alt texts for those pictures. But I was just wondering about:
 * 1. Why does the lede start "were monuments fashioned" rather than "are monuments which were fashioned"
 * Changed this to "are monuments that were fashioned". Simon Burchell (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. The lede mentions that certain stelae were not painted, this is covered better later on, but I would have thought it would be more logical to say that some were originally decorated, or all but a certain type were originally painted
 * I've expanded the intro a little to mention the painting of monuments. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3. The lede says that "The sculptural tradition that produced the stelae emerged fully formed" and mentions a theory of it being preceded by woodcarving, but Maya_stelae doesn't mention the woodcarving theory and instead attributes an Olmec influence.
 * I've combined the info in both places, explaining that the raising of stelae originated with the Olmecs, but the Maya sculptural tradition was probably preceded by carving in wood. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK that makes sense, but it isn't quite how I read the article. May I suggest shifting "The sculptural tradition that produced the stelae emerged fully formed and had probably been preceded by sculpted wooden monuments." out of the lede and combining it with preclassic origins as "The Mayan sculptural tradition that produced the stelae emerged fully formed and had probably been preceded by sculpted wooden monuments. However the tradition of raising stelae had its origin elsewhere in Mesoamerica among the Olmecs of the Gulf Coast of Mexico." instead?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK - changed as requested. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4. Weight and distance moved are only mentioned for one or two extreme examples, if available I'd appreciate more on this, in particular what was the size of typical stelae?
 * A table of dimensions of all stelae mentioned in the article (where available) are in the table at the bottom of the Manufacture section. Weights of monuments are not generally available, and I suspect those given are estimations based on the sheer quantity of stone - I doubt anyone has actually weighed these monuments. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it I doubt if many people have weighed a Moai, though somehow we do have lots of weights for them. If that isn't the tradition in Mayan archaeology then we must make do without, but thanks for the response.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5. A map would be nice, not essential. but it would help put the quarries, stele locations and Olmecs into some context.
 * I've dropped a map into the "Preclassic origins" section, showing the Olmec heartland relative to the southern Maya area. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6. If anyone has compared quality of workmanship of the stelae with other Mayan stonework, or estimated how much work a stelae represents then that would be nice to see in the article
 * Unfortunately the technical details of stela manufacture are vastly under-represented in the published sources, which are far more concerned with the translation of any surviving hieroglyphic texts. It was actually hard work getting as much on manufacture into the article as I have, and I have not found any source that mentions their production in any detail. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pity, but if it hasn't yet been covered then we can't include it. Thanks for looking - I think someone could do a Phd thesis on that some day.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7. Looting is well covered but perhaps a little about the archaeological story would be nice. I'm assuming some or all of them were rediscovered in the last century?
 * I've knocked up a new section with the early discovery of Maya stelae in the 16th through to 19th centuries. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again thanks for an interesting read.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your comments - I think everything is dealt with - let me know if not. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I found the text interesting, well-researched and closely referenced. I've not checked images or done source checking (most appear to be offline and this isn't my area). With those provisos, I support. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Simon Burchell (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  - reading through now and copyediting as I go. There are some redundant words I am removing hopefully without introducing ambiguity. Feel free to revert any removal which compromises meaning. I'll jot queries below. They are minor quibbles really and not dealbreakers as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is known that royal artisans were sometimes responsible.... (do we need the bit I bolded there?)
 * OK, it's gone. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * link Pomoná, and black slate or slate.
 * I linked "slate". There is no existing article for this Pomoná - were you intending that it be intentionally redlinked? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ...65 tons - tons or tonnes? and should it have a conversion?
 * Source gave tons, I've added the converstion. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please ping me when you're done. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes: we don't see this often, but the article is underlinked-- see WP:RED. Also, the page ranges in citations need to be corrected for WP:ENDASHes. See my edit summaries for other MOS issues. Also, some page numbers in the citations use p.x, others use p. x (with a space), which is it? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed the page numbers and was going to start adding spaces but all teh ones I saw were unspaced. I'll leave that to Simon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the only instance of a "p. x" that I could find - all the others are unspaced, except after a comma. I've also added all the "ndash"es. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The article is still underlinked, and needs a review for WP:RED as well (I found two in two sentences).  Underrepresented topics on Wiki are where we should be trying to "build the web" by adding links to unwritten articles, and I found a written article unlinked as well.  Another example: there's a link to Classic Period and Postclassic, but not Terminal Classic.  Please spend some time reviewing all of the linking. When done, check the dabs-- there's a dab now t Richard Hansen.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the examples - I've added more links, fixed some redirects etc. and sorted out the hyphens. Let me know if there's still more to be done. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.