Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spanish conquest of Guatemala/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 GrahamColm 14:48, 17 March 2012.

Spanish conquest of Guatemala

 * Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedro de Alvarado crossed into what is now Guatemala in early 1524, three years after Hernán Cortés defeated the Aztecs, and found a region containing a complex mix of competing Mesoamerican kingdoms already ravaged by diseases accidentally introduced by the conquistadors. Thus began a series of conflicts that lasted around two hundred years as each of these kingdoms was conquered or evangelised. I rescued this page from a redirect in August 2011 and it passed GA in December. I am now satisfied that it covers all the major incidents of the conquest of Guatemala and have done what I can to iron out any problems before bringing it here. The article is comprehensive and stable; I hope that FA review will further improve it. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on References section I know that the main requirement with referencing is for consistency but I would...
 * Remove all the explicit pp. from the references. The template will insert them for edited books. A number of references currently have "pp. pp."
 * I've done this. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Use the jstor= parameter for the journal articles available from jstor – instead of linking the title. It is then clear that a subscription is required.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Omit the oclc number where an isbn is available
 * On Worldcat, an ISBN can point to multiple entries while an oclc points to a specific entry so I prefer to keep both. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Simplify the "6th edition, fully revised and expanded ed" to "6th ed.", the "5th, revised and enlarged ed" to "5th ed.", etc
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Give only the first publication place where several are listed by the publisher.
 * I prefer to give the complete information. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the "Citations" section, insert a space between the pp. and the page number.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (and I don’t like the use of small caps – I find them more difficult to read)
 * The use of small caps is fairly standard at WikiProjects Mesoamerica and Central America. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Aa77zz (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going through this - it's a bit tidier now. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to cite books by Robert M. Carmack written in Spanish? Has he published similar material in English? His English publications have similar titles. Aa77zz (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of his works may also have been published in English (but not Historia Social de los K'iche's as far as I know). However, I bought my copies in Guatemala and don't have access to English language versions; page numbers would not be the same in any case. Carmack's books are solid referencing for the K'iche' and the fact that they are in Spanish shouldn't make a difference. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where possible you should use English sources – see WP:NOENG – "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." The titles obviously aren't identical but is Carmack, Robert M. (2001b): "Kik'ulmatajem le K'iche'aab': Evolución del Reino K'iche'" the same as "The Quiché Mayas of Utatlán: the evolution of a highland Guatemala" First published in 1981, reprinted in 2012? If it is then you should use the (original?) English edition. Aa77zz (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I would use the English version if I had it but I don't. Where English texts are available, I've used them. In an article upon the history of Guatemala, Spanish texts should not be unexpected, and I've had no problems with using Spanish texts in previous FAs. WP:NOENG points out that an English text is preferred (not demanded) if I have one available, that is not the case. Carmack is a reliable source, and I only have the text in Spanish. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Polo Sifontes, Francis (unknown). Zaculeu: Ciudadela Prehispánica Fortificada. Guatemala" This seems not to be generally available – I cannot find it listed in the Library of Congress catalog or by using google. Is it published? I expect to be able to verify the information without visiting the Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala. Aa77zz (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is published; I can't seem to find it under my book mountain at the moment. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in it that isn't supported in the other sources, so I've removed it as redundant. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on prose
 * There are a few 'due to's in the article which need to be replaced by 'owing to' or 'because of'. 'Due to' is adjectival and should hence only be directly attached to a conjugated form of 'to be' (like 'the cancellation of the concert was due to the rain), whilst 'owing to' is adverbial and can therefore be attached to all other verbs (like 'the concert was cancelled owing to the rain'). 'Because of' ought to be used when its sentence can answer a 'Why?' question w/o a full sentence. Another good rule of thumb is that 'due to' can only be used when 'attributable to', 'caused by' or 'resulting from' also would work. And never start a sentence w/ it.
 * I've replaced all instances with alternate phrasing. You might want to cast your eye over it to check the changes are all OK. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good. There were a couple of places where I would have used 'because of' instead, but I'm not a native speaker of English, so I cannot be sure. Eisfbnore  talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "New crops were also introduced but sugarcane and coffee led to the plantations that came to economically exploit native labour." → "New crops were also introduced; however, sugarcane and coffee led to plantations that economically exploited native labour."
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Guatemalan society is divided into a class system largely based on race, with Maya peasants and artisans at the bottom, with the mixed-race Ladino salaried workers and bureaucrats forming the middle and lower class and above them the creole elite of pure European ancestry."—bin the second 'with'.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Make sure that all year ranges are separated with dashes and not hyphens.
 * I think I've changed them all. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Pedro de Alvarado's brother Jorge wrote another account to the king of Spain explaining that it was his own campaign of 1527-1529 that established the Spanish colony."—swap 'explaining' for 'that explained' to remove noun+present participle construction.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the article written in Brit. or Am. Eng.? I find both 'neighbouring' and 'percent'.
 * Whoops - that's British English; I've fixed that "percent". Simon Burchell (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Although it was well-planned the rebellion was quickly crushed and its leaders were executed; most of the mission towns were abandoned as a result."—my eyes would prefer a comma after 'well-planned'.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Tlaxcalan allies of the Spanish who accompanied them in their invasion of Guatemala wrote their own accounts of the conquest, these included a letter to the Spanish king protesting at the poor treatment of these allies once the campaign was over."—comma splice
 * I've swapped it for a semi-colon. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Caption: "Relief map of Guatemala showing the three broad geographical areas; the southern Pacific lowlands, the highlands and the northern Petén lowlands"—replace the semicolon w/ a colon or an em-dash.
 * I've swapped it for a colon. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "At the same time as the Spanish were occupied with the overthrow of the Aztec empire a terrible plague struck the Kaqchikel capital of Iximche"—comma after 'empire'.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Cortés' allies in Soconusco soon informed him that the K'iche' and the Kaqchikel were not loyal, instead harassing the allies of Spain in the region" → "Cortés' allies in Soconusco soon informed him that the K'iche' and the Kaqchikel were not loyal; instead they reputedly harassed the allies of Spain in the region."
 * I'm not clear why this needs "reputedly". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind the 'reputedly'; I just want to get rid of the gerund construction. Eisfbnore  talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the gerund can easily be changed without changing the meaning of the sentence in some way - and in this case the gerund is preferable since the harassment was an ongoing process at the time when Cortés was informed. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

More to come. Eisfbnore talk 15:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking this over, I've been staring at it for so long sometimes I just don't see the mistakes! Simon Burchell (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure; I will continue the review as soon as I am able. Eisfbnore  talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Spanish viewed the taking of prisoners as a hindrance to outright victory while the Maya priority was the capture of live prisoners and of booty."—this sentence would take better use of its grammatical parallelisms if it read thus: "The Spanish viewed the taking of prisoners as a hindrance to outright victory while the Maya prioritised the capture of live prisoners and of booty." In that way you'll have a more logic and parallel structure with 'subject - predicate - object ; subject - predicate object'
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Bernal Díaz del Castillo wrote a lengthy account of the conquest of Mexico and neighbouring regions, the Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España ("True History of the Conquest of New Spain"), his account of the conquest of Guatemala generally agrees with that of the Alvarados."—swap the second comma for a semicolon to elude the comma splice
 * Done.


 * "Two pictorial accounts painted in the stylised indigenous pictographic tradition have survived, these are the Lienzo de Quauhquechollan, which was probably painted in Ciudad Vieja in the 1530s, and the Lienzo de Tlaxcala, painted in Tlaxcala."—another comma splice (the first comma); could have fixed it myself though ;P
 * Done.


 * "In response to the use of cavalry, the highland Maya took to digging pits on the roads, lining them with fire-hardened stakes and camouflaging them with grass and weeds, a tactic that the Kaqchikel claimed killed many horses."—perhaps I am being unkind, but I do maintain that the the 'claimed killed' produces a garden path effect. I would try something down the line of "a tactic that according to the Kaqchikel killed many horses."
 * Done.


 * "In March 1524, Pedro de Alvarado entered Q'umarkaj when invited by the remaining lords of the K'iche' after the catastrophic defeat of the K'iche' army in the Quetzaltenango valley."—not quite sure, but I think I've heard some other WPedians argue that the comma after the year is un-British.
 * I've obviously been reading too many sources in American English! Fixed. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Kaqchikel appear to have entered into an alliance with the Spanish in order to defeat their enemies"—'in order to' is an unnecessarily verbose formulation; try 'to' instead.
 * Done.


 * "A Kaqchikel priest foretold that the Kaqchikel gods would destroy the Spanish and the Kaqchikel people abandoned their city and fled to the forests and hills on 28 August 1524 (7 Ahmak in the Kaqchikel calendar)."—another garden path sentence: When I read it, I first thought that the priest foretold that both the Spanish and the Kaqchikel people would be destroyed! I would swap the 'and' for a semicolon or an em-dash.
 * Hah, that's what it looked like to me too! Fixed.


 * "A day later they were joined by many nobles and their families and many more people and then surrendered at the new Spanish capital at Ciudad Vieja."—and...and...and... At least the final one could be replaced by some fancy semicolon construction.
 * Done.


 * "The Kaqchikel kept up resistance against the Spanish for a number of years but on 9 May 1530, exhausted by the warfare that had seen the deaths of their best warriors and the enforced abandonment of their crops"—'on 9 May 1530' is a parenthetical phrase; please put a comma after 'but'.
 * Done.


 * "Conquistador Bernal Díaz del Castillo recounted how in 1526 he returned to Iximche and spent the night in the "old city of Guatemala" together with Luis Marín and other members of Hernán Cortés's expedition to Honduras."—the lack of a def article before 'Conquistador' creates a tabloid-ish sound in my head; I think The Guardian ' s style guide also recommends against the non-def use. -- Eisfbnore talk 20:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Added the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support – 'tis a lay-friendly and accessible article. Well done. Eisfbnore talk 08:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Eisfbnore. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is the lead image so huge?
 * I've changed this to 300px as recommended for a lead image at Manual of Style/Images, can't say I see much difference on my screen though. Simon Burchell (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * PD-old requires that you also include a US PD tag
 * I've had a look at the PD-US tags over on Commons and I'm not sure which one to use, maybe PD-1996? Simon Burchell (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on the image - File:Bartolome_de_las_casas.jpg, File:Alvarado.jpeg and File:CartedAmerique.jpeg should either be PD-US or PD-1996. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All done.


 * File:Guatemala_Topography.png: what is SRTM?
 * That would be Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Simon Burchell (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Hernán_Cortés,_Museo_de_América.jpg: source link seems to be broken
 * I've put in a link to Waybackmachine. The original pic doesn't seem to have been captured by the archive (just a broken frame) but the click to see larger version does work. Simon Burchell (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Bartolomedelascasas.jpg: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Imported from English wikipedia(!) Original file long gone by the looks of it. I can replace it with File:Bartolome de las casas.jpg, which was taken from Bartholomew de Las Casas; his life, apostolate, and writings by Francis Augustus MacNutt, 1909 (available at Project Gutenberg, just scroll down slighlty). Simon Burchell (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've swapped the images over. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but if you're claiming author+70 you really should include author name on the description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, this should be really obvious, but 3D works like File:Maya-Maske.jpg need to account for the copyright status of the work itself as well as the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've dropped the approximate date of creation (AD 250-600) onto the description page, with ref. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comming back! I believe I've sorted out everything. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment about the table. I've made it accessible by adding row and col scopes, but I note that if you wish it to be sortable, I think you need to fix the dates column to sort correctly (i.e. by date), probably using the dts template. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I've long wondered how to get dates to sort in tables. Any idea how to get the "February - March 1524" to sort correctly (sort as February 1524 but displayed as "February-March 1524" would be fine)? All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. You could use the dtsh template to sort as February 1524 and then just have "February-March 1524" as free text straight afterwards, I think that'd do the trick!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect! All sorting fine now - many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, glad to be of assistance. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Question The table has no citations. Is all the information contained within the table also present elsewhere in the article? If not then the source(s) for the info in the table should be specified. Aa77zz (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right, all the info is taken from the article body and is cited in the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:Checklist will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Thanks to Eisfbnore for working on the prose here; there are only two things I'm sure I disagree with. I don't like the first comma in "The Kaqchikel kept up resistance against the Spanish for a number of years but, on 9 May 1530, exhausted by ...", and I moved the comma in front of the "but". Perhaps I'm to blame here if I got an earlier version of WP:Checklist wrong ... I'm not sure, but I tried to be careful to say that if there's a comma before the parenthetical phrase, then you need a comma after, and not the other way around, that is, a comma coming after doesn't absolutely require a comma before (although I always stop and ponder where the "breath" is most likely to come). Also, I've always liked the style guide of the Guardian when I've consulted it, and if they say this is important, I'd like to know, but I'm pretty sure it's fine with just about everyone to start a sentence with "Conquistador Bernal Díaz del Castillo". I'm guessing the Guardian is objecting to sentences like "Farmer Jones said ...". - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit I prefer it as it originally read "Conquistador Bernal Diaz..." rather than "The conquistador Bernal Diaz...", which sounds rather forced to my ear... Simon Burchell (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest you change every "upon" to "on" except for two: "upon the initial approach" and "upon the approach".
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "the Maya kingdoms resisted integration into the Spanish Empire with great tenacity, causing the conquest of the Maya to last almost two centuries.": See WP:Checklist. I'd go with: "the Maya kingdoms resisted integration into the Spanish Empire with such tenacity that their conquest took almost two centuries." - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Malleus is reading this now, and it's British English, so ... I'm going to move on, but if I can help with anything, don't hesitate to ask. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input - best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I hope you haven't left because of me Dank. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just saw this ... Heh, no, it wasn't "OMG it's Malleus, everyone out of the pool!" I meant that with supports from (hopefully) you and Eisfbnore, I'm probably not needed to get it over the hump, and I'm stretched as it is, so ... very much obliged, and if I can help with anything (here or elsewhere), please give me a shout. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on formulation of specific sentence in section Conquest of Petén: "'The Franciscan friar Andrés de Avendaño oversaw a second attempt to overcome the Itza in 1695, convincing the Itza king that the K'atun 8 Ajaw, a twenty-year Maya calendrical cycle beginning in 1696 or 1697, was the right time for the Itza to finally embrace Christianity and to accept the king of Spain as overlord. However the Itza had local Maya enemies who resisted this conversion and in 1696 Avendaño was also fortunate to get away alive.' [my italics]" The text I marked in italics is a bit puzzling and may need clarifying, i.e., it appears to imply the Itza may have been ready for conversion this time, but instead of going along with the Franciscans, decided to chase them away, because their (the Itza's) enemies were against it. This seems contradictory. -- Arjuno (talk 22:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Arjuno - I've rephrased to ...in 1696 Avendaño was fortunate to get away without these hostile Maya killing him. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Malleus Fatuorum. I like this article, and will likely support its promotion once I've read the whole thing, but I really do hate inconsistency; is it "Guatemalan Highlands" or "Guatemalan highlands"?
 * Scholarly sources (in English and Spanish) use caps and treat it as a placename, so I've changed every instance of "Guatemalan highlands" to "Guatemalan Highlands". In those places where "highlands" stands alone (so is not a placename) I've left it with the small "h". Please let me know what you think. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Impact of Old World diseases
 * This is just a question to which the answer may be obvious, but I'm struck that there's no mention of the Spanish being affected by New World diseases such as yellow fever or malaria. Even at the end of the 19th century those two accounted for a large number of construction workers excavating the Panama Canal.
 * All of my sources concentrate on the Spanish impact upon Guatemala rather than the opposite - I have seen mentions in Spanish primary accounts of fever etc. although exact diseases weren't so easily identifiable. Malaria was an Old World disease so wouldn't have had any effect until some time after the conquest. Yellow fever was also an Old World disease. The only significant New World disease seems to have been syphilis but I'm having a lot of trouble tracking down sources for Guatemala, or of diseases affecting the conquistadors in general. It seems to be a chronically understudied area. In the "Fall of Nojpetén" section there is mention of disease badly affecting the colonists. Anyway, I'll see what I can dig up, if anything. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Subjugation of the K'iche'
 * "Their resistance failed and the conquistadors crossed the river and ransacked nearby settlements in order to terrorise the K'iche' resistance. On 8 February 1524, after forcing their way across the river, Alvarado's army fought a battle at Xetulul ...". Presumably the ransacked settlements were on the other side of the river? But why are we being told twice that the Spanish crossed the river?
 * Good point. I've cut "after forcing their way across the river". Simon Burchell (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Kaqchikel rebellion
 * "The Spaniards abandoned Tecpán in 1527 ...". Why is "Spaniards" linked in that sentence, and why are they called Spaniards here and "Spanish" almost everywhere else?
 * No good reason - I originally wrote this section for the Iximche article, I think, and the language and link are a holdover from that. I've changed both. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "A day later they were joined by many nobles and their families and many more people". Many more people than what? It seems strange as well to say "a day later", as no date was given in the preceding sentence for when the two kings "returned from the wilds".
 * The preceding sentence is "The Kaqchikel kept up resistance against the Spanish for a number of years, but on 9 May 1530, exhausted by the warfare that had seen the deaths of their best warriors and the enforced abandonment of their crops, the two kings of the most important clans returned from the wilds.", so a date was given for when the kings returned. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Land of War: Verapaz
 * "In response a punitive expedition was launched, headed by Juan Matalbatz, an indigenous leader from Chamelco; the independent Indians that the Q'eqchi' expedition captured were taken back to Cobán and resettled in Santo Tomás Apóstol." Is the Q'eqchi' expedition the one led by Juan Matalbatz? If so, it seems odd to introduce its name here, when the only prior mention of the Q'eqchi' is that they had been relocated, and the friar was murdered by the Acala and their Lacandon allies, apparently not by the Q'eqchi'. And what does "independent Indians" mean?
 * The expedition was a colonial Q'eqchi' expedition and the "independent Indians" means those Indians still not subjugated by Spain. I've changed "an indigenous leader" to "a Q'eqchi' leader". Simon Burchell (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lake Izabal and the lower Motagua River
 * "The new settlement immediately suffered a drop in population, but although they were reported extinct before 1613 in some sources, Mercedarian friars were still attending to Amatique Toquegua in 1625." That doesn't quite work; "they" is presumably meant to refer to "population", but that's a singular noun, and to compound the problem it looks like "they" is referring back to the subject of the preceding clause, "the new settlement". Needs rewriting in some way I think.
 * I've rephrased to "The new settlement immediately suffered a drop in population, but although the Amatique Toquegua were reported extinct before 1613 in some sources, Mercedarian friars were still attending to them in 1625." Simon Burchell (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better. Reading the original again, it even looks like it might be the Mercedarian friars who were reported extinct. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh! That raised a smile...always good to have a fresh eye! Simon Burchell (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What a great ghost story that would make; the extinct friars attending to a deserted settlement. More seriously, you'll no doubt be relieved to hear that I've almost finished reading through, just a couple more sections to go. Thanks for dealing with my no doubt irritating nitpicks so quickly and patiently. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking so much time to go through it. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "During the same campaign to conquer the Itza of Petén ...". Why is it saying "the same campaign"? The same campaign as what?
 * I've dropped the "same", which was referring to the events of the next section and isn't really necessary. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Subjugation of the K'iche'
 * "With the destruction of Q'umarkaj and the execution of its rulers, Pedro de Alvarado sent messages to Iximche, capital of the Kaqchikel, proposing an alliance against the remaining K'iche' resistance." Starting this sentence of with "with" implies that the message being sent was the destruction of the town and the executions, but that can't be the case if Pedro was also proposing an alliance.
 * I've changed "with" to "after". Simon Burchell (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a great piece of work, really excellent, especially as it's such a helluva span to try and cover. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Malleus - that was a heroic copyedit. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is an excellent article that fully deserves to be promoted. I have a couple of suggestions:
 * I think it would be nice to have a couple of quotes from original eyewitness accounts of the conquest both by Conquistadors and by Mayas. I know that Restall and Hill/Maxwell have published translations of some of those accounts. I forget whether Bernal Díaz del Castillo participated in Guatemala, but if he did his account would be another one that might be worth quoting. I think eyewitness quotes would make the account even more compelling for the lay reader.
 * I had previously thought of dropping in some quotes and never got around to it - I think I might even have some notes somewhere. I'll see what I can do - I certainly don't have a shortage. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've dropped in three quotes - from Pedro de Alvarado, Bartolomé de las Casas and the Annals of the Kaqchikels. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's excellent. They're just suggestions by the way not something that I think is imperative for the article to work.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also I would suggest chaging the wording in the lead where it says "translated for their Spanish masters" - I think this suggests a very clear power structure between Nahuatl allies and Spaniards - where I think that recent scholarship have suggested that many of the indigenous allies at this point did not consider themselves subjugated by Spanish masters, but rather as participants in a joint military venture.
 * I've changed this to "the Spanish". Simon Burchell (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also I would suggest another image than Alvarado for the lead - perhaps an illustration of a conquest scene in an indigenous codex (for example found here at John Chuchiak's homepage), or in a comtemporary drawing if one can be found.
 * Thanks for the link, but since I'm unsure of the copyright status of the image (it could be a copy rather than an original) I don't think I can use it - when writing the article I did try to find a free use version of just that. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure there are free use scans of Lienzo de Tlaxcala somewhere on the net. I'll try to look into it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The article mentions that the K'iche sent envoys to Tenochtitlan after its fall. It doesn't mention the fact that they were told of the Spaniards arrival by envoys sent by Moctezuma II - who was related to the K'iche' ruler by marriage. this I believe is mentioned i Restall's Seven myths of the Spanish conquest.
 * I don't have Seven Myths, so I'm unable to add that - I had no idea that Moctezuma II had family connections with the K'iche'. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also perhaps mention the fact that Cortés executed the rulers of the triple alliance in Acalán before he entered Petén.
 * I think I cut that because it wasn't relevant - it happened in (what is now) Mexico before crossing into Petén, but I might add a sentence. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, I'll sort them out properly Wednesday evening. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support on prose and comprehensiveness Comment - beginning a read-through now. Will post queries below : Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Casliber, I'll respond individually below. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 *  Many conquistadors viewed the Maya, without regard to the achievements of their civilization, as "infidels" who needed to be forcefully converted and pacified - comes over a tad clunky to me. I think it'd be smoother as: "Many conquistadors viewed the Maya as "infidels" who needed to be forcefully converted and pacified, disregarding the achievements of their civilization."
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * :I wonder if the lead would read better if the second and third paragraphs were swapped. To me the flow is more natural (temporal overview followed by some specifics), but others may disagree.....
 * Do you mean the third and fourth paragraphs? The third paragraph, now I come to look at it, splits two paragraphs dealing with historical events, so I've swapped the last two around. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, much better flow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  two of these letters are no longer extant - why not " two of these letters no longer exist"?
 * I've changed it to "two of these letters are now lost", although I don't really see what was wrong with the original wording. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even better. The original wording is ok, but I just figured my (and your) alternatives make it crisper still. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See above - no prose clangers remain. Looks nice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Casliber! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we still need a spotcheck on this article. Ucucha (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments - I was the GA reviewer for this article and was quite impressed at that point; the article has only improved since then. A few further comments:
 * Guatemala before the Conquest, "All were Maya groups except for the Pipil, who were a Nahua group related to the Aztecs; they had a number of small city-states along the Pacific coastal plain of southern Guatemala and El Salvador." I'm not sure if "they" is referring to the Maya groups or the Pipil (I'm assuming the latter, but am not 100% sure).
 * I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Guatemala before the Conquest, "the Kaqchikel allies of the K'iche' rebelled against their former overlords". "Allies" does not seem to jive with "overlords" - allies implies (at least to me) something approaching equality, or at least a voluntary relationship, while "overlords" implies that the pairing was involuntary and that one group was basically a protectorate of the other.
 * I've rephrased this to in the late 15th century the Kaqchikel rebelled against their former K'iche' allies. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Conquistadors, "Bernal Díaz del Castillo was a petty nobleman who accompanied Hernán Cortés when he crossed the northern lowlands, and Pedro de Alvarado's on his invasion of the highlands." de Alvarado's what?
 * Look's like that's been rephrased since I wrote it - originally "Pedro de Alvarado's invasion". I've cut the "'s". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Impact of Old World diseases, "In 1666 pestilence or murine typhus". Is "pestilence" referring to a specific disease here or just the general grouping of things that killed the natives? If the latter, it seems a little strange to have the sentence saying basically "in 1666 some general disease (or maybe this really specific one) swept through..."
 * Yes, I thought it strange but that's what my source says:
 * For 1666, pestilence or, possibly, murine typhus (Span. tarbadillo) is reported for the actual Departamento de Huehuetenango.


 * Subjugation of the K'iche', "However, he encamped" I don't think the "however" is necessary here, as encamping outside is not in opposition to his fear of a trap. If you really want a lead in, you could say "Due to this" (referring to his fear discussed in the previous sentence), or just have nothing there.
 * I've cut the "however". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Cortes in Peten, "Hernán Cortés led an expedition to Honduras over land". Should this be "what is now Honduras", or had it already been named in 1525?
 * The territory had apparently been referred to as Honduras since 1502, so-called because of the deep water off its coast (honduras is Spanish for "depths"). Simon Burchell (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Land of War:Verapez, "In 1555 the Acala and their Lacandon allies killed the Spanish friar Domingo de Vico." Do we know why?
 * Yes indeed. A grisly tale, and a testament to the dangers of evangelising natives who still practise human sacrifice... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Not much, and all very minor. I'm going to be out of town this weekend and don't know if I'll have Internet access, but if not, will check back in on Monday. In the meantime, I plan to support once the comments above are addressed. If no-one gets to a spotcheck before then, I will try to make time for one on Monday, although it would probably be better for someone with better Spanish skills than mine to do so. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dana, I've responded to each of your comments. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda Arendt

I am very impressed with the depth of the article, not unexpected, given author and topic. Minor comments:
 * lede: I understand that no refs are required in the lede. I would not link trivia such as wheel, steel, poison. I would like the lede not to end somewhat harmless, but summarize like de las Casas: "one could make a whole book...out of the atrocities, barbarities, murders, clearances, ravages and other foul injustices perpetrated...by those that went to Guatemala".
 * These are not general links - "wheel" links to the history of the wheel in Mesoamerica and "poison" links specifically to Arrow poison. Fair enough on steel though - I've delinked it. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To maintain neutrality, I think the Las Casas quote should not be picked out for inclusion in the lead. I've sprinkled 3 quotes in, and I carefully chose each to give as balanced a view as possible. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The occasional ref in the lead is because that specific information is not covered elsewhere in the article - e.g. the article as a whole relates the "prolonged conquest over almost 200 years" but the ref specifically states it. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Historical sources: I would link Lienzo de Tlaxcala in the pic cap, for ease of reference
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Tough reading, what people do to people. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing comments - I have taken the liberty of spotchecking the sources and paid close attention to those used for describing the impact of old world diseases, since this is a speciality of mine. I found no issues. Graham Colm (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Graham, and to everyone who left comments/feedback. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.