Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norte Chico civilization


 * 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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Norte Chico civilization
An interesting topic with a side-order of academic mud-slinging. Thanks to Jmabel for help with Spanish, and Sandy for ref formatting. I don’t usually post long nominations, but I’m anticipating some concerns, so:


 * Images. Yes, I’m relying on a picture of anchovies (a nice one!). If I can’t find any I’m confident of for the PD, I can’t find any, so don’t hold it against the article. Reviewers can tell me what they think of pics from here. I’m not sure what our consensus is on press kits.


 * Prose. It’s a bit clunky because I have done prose attribution (BBC has reported, Shady argues, etc.) all over the place. I felt I had to with this one.


 * Comprehensiveness. Everything I could find in English is here. I realize it's not exceptionally long, but there isn't too much out there for now.


 * Neutral and stable. There is serious dispute over this topic, including over its name, and who should be credited with discovery. (This is why I’m attributing everything in-sentence.) I think it's handled well. People can follow a couple of the links to form their own opinion of the "Research controversies" section. Marskell 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Should Haas be introduced earlier than the Research controversies section since his name is invoked extensively in the text prior? Cramer is mentioned once before as well. Budding Journalist 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added first names to all first mentions. Marskell 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support (I made some extremely minor contributions.) Well-written, well-referenced, structurally sound.  Marskell has addressed the controversy very well, and this appears to be the best info on the net covering this topic.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Needs map. Will support when it gets one. I cannot tell precisely where this civilization was from the text, because one of the boundaries given is a redlink. --Golbez 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Golbez, I agree it needs a map. But if I can't find one suitable for the public domain, how can this be held against the article? Marskell 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That which does not exist must be made. Find a map of Peru and shade in the appropriate area. But again, since I don't know what the appropriate area is, I cannot do this myself. So look at the lack of the map as indicative of a larger problem - the bounds of the region are not adequately expressed in the article. (Though it's the redlink that's the problem, so it's the lack of a proper outside article) --Golbez 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just added "160 km north of Lima," for now. I agree and disagree, more generally. I absolutely agree that this article would be well-served by a map and better graphics generally; I anticipated that concern and said so in the nom. But I disagree with the contention that a lack is an oppose basis. WIAFA wording and general practice has never said you must have X graphic. At the same time, the prose should definitely allow you to "place the place" in your head. Is "160 km north of Lima" sufficient for the timebeing? Marskell 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Suitable enough for the time being, I switch to a Weak support. I'm amazed I'd never heard of this civilization before. --Golbez 21:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Golbez, so am I—at least a couple of paragraphs in the history of the world need to be rewritten, given its age. I very very vaguely recalled the CNN/BBC type stuff from 2001 ("Crazy old Civ discovered in Peru!") but heard no more about it in the mainstream media. And then I picked up the Mann book over Christmas and thought "holy sh*t, why isn't this on Wiki!" :). I'll be really curious to see how Brittanica treats it. They don't have anything yet. Marskell 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thorough, detailed, well-referenced, would look good on the front-page, support Ahadland 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support excellent, fascinating article. A few little nitpicks -
 * 'derived an identical list in their survey further north, while adding...' - so it's not identical, is it? ;) Needs another phrase here.
 * Indeed.
 * First sentence of the maritine civilization section is very awkward. Actually, the same for the cotton section.
 * The first on cotton was a real clunker--changed. I'm guessing you don't mean the first on MFAC, "It is the role of the maritime dietary component that has aroused debate", but the second "Much early fieldwork (prior to the realization of the full scope and inter-connectedness of the civilization) was done in the region of Aspero on the coast." I moved the subordinate clause out of the bracket.
 * Sorry, that's the one. Although I'm not actually a big fan of the first MFAC sentence either, it wasn't the one I meant to complain about ;) 'Role of the component' is kind of weak, and why 'maritime dietary component' instead of 'the role of seafood...'? (Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't think of any 'maritime dietary components' that aren't considered seafood...)
 * In the economy and government section - what is 'significant capacity'? Hundreds of people? Thousands? Several football stadiums?
 * None of the sources hazard a guess as to total population or total groups of workers on one site. It bothered me too, but it will have to remain general. "Significant capacity" was redundant with "considerable power," so I shuffled things.
 * 'a unique emergence of human government, one of two alongside Sumer (or three, if Mesoamerica is included as a separate case)' - why not include Mesoamerica separately? Is the contention that Mesoamerican government derived in some way from the Norte Chico, or just that the presence of government in Mesoamerica is disputed?
 * I'll reply to this one fully when I have the book in front of my again.
 * 'two confirmed shore sites in the Norte Chico (Aspero and Bandurria) and possibly two more' - very awkward phrasing.
 * Is "Aspero and Bandurria are the only two confirmed shore sites in the Norte Chico (two others have been suggested)..." any better?
 * Much better.
 * 'In 2004 Haas et al. would write...' - where the et al doesn't include Shady, presumably. This is clear from the reference text but not from the main text, where this comes right after discussion of Haas, Creamer, and Shady as coauthors.
 * But doesn't "...while only noting Shady in footnotes" make clear she wasn't a coauthor?
 * Well, yeah... you just have to trust the reader to hit the end of the sentence and remember the beginning. That's not always a given.
 * Should Shady's article include mention of this controversy? Opabinia regalis 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably should. I haven't paid as much attention to the blue links as I ought to have. I would worry about one general wiki-problem: a "Controversy" section creating a lopsided BLP.
 * It seems like this is probably a major aspect of her professional work, though, which would merit a mention.
 * Thanks for the comments. I've been wondering where everybody is... Marskell 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's odd which articles people pick to review, isn't it? Opabinia regalis 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - the intro claims that the culture "was largely without art". That probably needs to be reworded. Even if we take "art" to mean narrowly visual representaions, there's no way of knowing whether little "art" was found because they produced little, or because it wasn't made of lasting materials. Zocky | picture popups 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Largely without" was already a re-wording of an apparent absence. I agree with you. I'd worried that saying they did not have art so far as we can tell now might be OR. I've qualified this with no "archaeologically apparent" art, (in brackets) in the intro. Note, near the end of the page, a similar point is made: they did, apparently, have instrumental music, so "no art" doesn't hold. Marskell 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support &mdash; another solid work by Marskell. &mdash; Deckiller 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support attribution isn't too distracting and the article seems to make the most of the meagre information available. (Love the anchovies picture, maybe a picture of a shoe horn next to it would help) Yomangani talk 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.