Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Takalik Abaj/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 02:26, 7 February 2010.

Takalik Abaj

 * Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive treatment of the subject and is stable. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alt text, disamb links and external links look fine.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Map alt text probably should not start with "Map showing", though—it should describe what the map is trying to show (not colors, lines, etc.). See WP:ALT.  --an odd name 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've now modified the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Map alts look good. --an odd name 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I added some named refs for you. Note that here are many more instances of identical refs that could benefit fro being named. And yes, I used the long format for the named refs. It's easier to use  + H that way. ;-) &bull; Ling.Nut
 * Thanks Ling.Nut. The consensus at WP:MESO has been against the use of named refs which is why I tend not to put them in articles as I write. However, there are (at the time I type this) over 200 footnotes so I'll go through and name some. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've run down the citations and inserted named refs throughout. I've tried to be consistent with naming but a few notes:
 * With long and unwieldy Spanish-style surnames, I've abbreviated to initials e.g. Popenoe de Hatch & Schieber de Lavarreda becomes PH&SL.
 * Where the same author has written multiple reports I've put in a 2-digit year no. separated from the page no. by the letter "p".
 * I haven't split combined references, because multiple cite nos. tend to interrupt reading flow.
 * I hope this is acceptable. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Support A comprehensive article, seems to meet featured quality. A couple of minor issues. Shouldn't history come after Etymology, or at least before economy? Also in the long structure section I think that the left - right image alignment whilst complies with general guidelines I don't think works in this case. It really disrupts the list by having images on the left. I'd recommend right aligning those but using a double image type so the images needn't be so spread out. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you support and your comments. In my articles on Maya sites I've tended to put things like Etymology, Economy, Location etc. before History because they tend to be shorter sections and nicely set up the general context of the site before diving into the nitty-gritty of historical detail, and may indeed allow the historical detail to make more sense knowing why the city was built where it was (for example).


 * I'm not sure what you mean by double images - is that a particular layout? I took plenty of photos on my last visit to the site specifically with the idea of uploading them onto Commons, I think there are 60-odd images on Commons and I probably have a few more I could upload. I've used 18 in the article, so I can always put more in. I just didn't want to overwhelm the article with photos just because I had them. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been playing with previews of image placement and shifting all images to the right makes the page look very unbalanced. Is the problem to do with the bullet points? If so, perhaps taking these out and leaving the alternating images might by a better alternative? Simon Burchell (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

By double/multiple images I mean placed together like in the Thikse Monastery article. In fact formatted that way you could probably fit in more images but arranged in a way that doesn't look too cluttered. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 10:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've taken out most of the bullets and put in a couple of extra photos doubled up as you suggested. I think it looks better now and most of the images can still be staggered left-right. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Okay, the use of the Template:Smallcaps is incredibly annoying in the references. On my screen they render as an unitelligble blob. Please remove. The template itself says it should be used sparingly, and this is a case where it's not used well.
 * I have not reviewed the reliablity of the Spanish language sources, although a glance at the publishers seems to show that most are universities or museums, which should be reliable.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments Ealdgyth. I've taken out the templates as requested. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * support I am not a big fan of the long lists of structures and altars. I think they could better be represented in their own article called for example List of Structures and Monuments at Takalik Abaj - I would leave summary sections in situ and have a "main article" link to the lists. This is my only reservation about an excellent article with good prose and good sourcing, and if other editors do not find this to be a problem I will be happy to support without this change being made. PS: one more nitpick - I think the lead could do a better job of summarising the article body. It can be quite a bit longer - per WP:LEAD and article this size typically has a lead of three or four paragraphs. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maunus. I've expanded the intro somewhat but have left the lists in place, they come in the second half of the article so don't interupt the article's flow - they also give the opportunity to illiustrate the particular wealth of sculpture at the site with accompanying photos. However, if this is seen as a particular problem then I will reconsider. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 *  Object  Page ranges need to use a ndash not a hyphen. There is inconsistency in the authors in that some are list "Bob & Bill" and others "John and Jack", sometimes p. is used for multiple pages, otehr times pp. . The souces are tagged "Version digital" not needed and still in Spanish.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi YellowMonkey, I believe that between CJLL Wright and myself we've dealt with these concerns. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ps. Other than a handful of cosmetic tweaks neither I nor others of Simon's WP:MESO colleagues have been involved in putting this together. Kudos, Simon! --cjllw ʘ  TALK 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * support, Simon's done a superb job here and IMO the article readily meets or exceeds all the FA criteria. The treatment is comprehensive & I can think of no significant area in the extant modern literature abt the site that is left out or not covered in adequate depth. The sources used and authorities consulted are pretty much the most relevant and significant contemporary ones there are for this site. The article text fairly, proportionately and thoughtfully reflects the content & info of those sources (the ones I have access to, leastways, and have no cause for doubts about the rest). The citations are sound and prolific, there are no (non-mundane or self-evident) claims without backing cites that I can see. The prose is clear, appropriately pitched and straightforward. Any MOS-related issues seem all taken care of, and there appear to be no actionable items currently outstanding.
 * Thanks CJ. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Media review
 * All images and maps are CC-by-SA 3.0 with proper sources, look good, except:
 * File:Abaj Takalik Stela 5.jpg GNU Free Documentation License, looks good. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure I understand this last. Is there a problem with this image? Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see - different license, but still OK(?). Simon Burchell (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they are fine. Just writing them out so the FAC delegates know the images have been reviewed. Thanks! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

*Comment Any way the section heading hierarchy can be changed to avoid having fourth-level headings? Also, go through and check that all sentence fragments in captions don't have periods (see MOS:CAPTION: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (sentence fragments) that should not end with a period", bolding mine). Mm40 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the lowest level of headings, or rather I've pushed them up a level. I've also taken out the full stops in those captions that don't amount to an actual discussion of the associated image. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, striked. Mm40 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Per WP:MOSIMAGES "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." I see a few images in this article that are placed at the bottom of preceding sections. Please fix. Alt text and external links look good. +1 for under-represented topic area. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All done. Simon Burchell (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: There are two images (the second map and the photo sitting at the end of the Early Classic section) that are right at the end of their own section. I haven't moved them because doing so does strange things to the headers. Simon Burchell (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments I've only read about half of the article - I'll finish up tomorrow. Here is my first set of comments.


 * Could you put in a pronunciation guide or a recording of the site's name? I wasn't sure how to say it.
 * Maunus has kindly put in the English/K'iche' phonetics and I've dropped in a recording of the pronunciation. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * long sequence of sculpture in a variety of styles - "long sequence" is a bit confusing - I'm not sure what the phrase is supposed to mean here.
 * changed "long sequence to "persistent tradition". Simon Burchell (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is clearer to me. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Takalik Abaj was a sizeable city with the principal architecture divided into four groups spread across nine terraces. While some of these were natural features, others were artificial constructions requiring an enormous investment in labour and materials - It doesn't quite make sense to describe the architecture as divided into groups - do you mean the structures or the plan of the city?
 * Changed to "clustered into" - i.e. physical groupings of structures. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More precise, yes. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Ethnicity" section seems to be mostly about language - were these coterminous for the Maya or should the section be renamed "Languages"?
 * For the Maya, the broad ethnic grouping is pretty much determined by the language they speak (or increasingly in the modern world, by the language their parents spoke). Simon Burchell (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to try and rephrase that section to emphasise ethnicity rather than language if I may? ·Maunus· ƛ · 10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Be my guest, although I'd prefer it if the language info was still included. Any chance you could take care of the pronunciation query above? I used to speak some K'iche' but I wouldn't be able to write it out phonetically (or even English or Spanish for that matter). Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done both now, I hope it is acceptable. I tried to emphasise that speculations about ethnic and linguistic affiliation of the population of Takalik Abaj is inferred from conclusions about the archaeological data. ·Maunus· ƛ · 10:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maunus, that's great. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm all curious about the chronicles - is there any article about those we could link to? Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you add a few sentences on the signficance of obsidian? I wasn't sure why it was being discussed in the "Economy and trade" section.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! That is so helpful to readers like me who know very little about ancient Mesoamerican history. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ceramics from this period belong to the local Ocosito tradition - Could you explain this tradition a bit more? What are its characteristics?
 * Done (at first mention in History intro, before the chronological table). Simon Burchell (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * the Late Preclassic ceramics in Takalik Abaj were strongly related to the Miraflores Ceramic Sphere that included Escuintla, the Valley of Guatemala and western El Salvador. - Could you explain this tradition a bit more? What are its characteristics?
 * Done - brief description and distribution. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In this period, the ceramics show a change with the entry of the highland Solano style - Could you explain this tradition a bit more? What are its characteristics?
 * Done. I've also added a bit about the Naranjo style, since I'm sure you would have asked anyway! ;) Simon Burchell (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The ceramics sound so colorful! Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The verb tense of the article needs to be checked throughout - it is not consistent and sometimes the wrong tense has been chosen.
 * I've trawled through the whole article and changed the present tense to past when talking about the history, anything relating to the current archaeological remains I've left in present tense. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to reading the rest of the article! Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now read the rest of the article, and here are my comments.


 * In the description of each group, would it be possible to explain when and how each group was occupied. The "North Group" is described quite well - could the same kind of description be added to the "Central" and "West" group?
 * I've not been able to find much more information, nonetheless I have expanded these descriptions somewhat. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a little summary description of the "South" group needs to be added to the beginning of the "Site description and layout" section.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * These channels were also used to carry water to the residential areas of the city,[66] and it is possible that the channels also served a ritual purpose - What kind of ritual?
 * Linked to the rain god. Added. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two methods of construction used for the water channels. Clay channels date from the Middle Preclassic while stone-lined channels date from the Late Preclassic through to the Classic - Is there speculation as to why the building material changed?
 * I've rechecked the source and as a matter of fact there is - duly expanded. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Structure 11 has been excavated. It was covered with rounded boulders held together with clay.[19] It is located to the west of the plaza in the southern area of the Central Group. - I don't have a good grasp of what Structure 11 is from this description - could more be added? (I thought Structure 12 was a good description, for example. )
 * I've made an exhaustive search of my sources and I have no further information on Structure 11. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Further monuments line the east side, one of which may be the head of a crocodilian - Should this be "crocodile"? If not, could the word be linked?
 * Crocodilian and not crocodile because the species cannot be determined from the sculpture - it could be an alligator or caiman. I've linked to Crocodilia. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Structure 34 is in the West Group, at the eastern corner of Terrace 6 - Could more description be added so the reader has a sense of what these remains look like?
 * It's probably a mound, but I don't find that specifically mentioned so can't put it in. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Structures 38, 39, 42 and 43 are joined by low platforms on the east side of a plaza on Terrace 7, aligned north-south. Structures 40, 47 and 48 are on south, west and north sides of this plaza. Structures 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 form a small group on the west side of the terrace, bordered on the north by Terrace 9. Structure 42 is the tallest structure in the North Group, measuring about 11.5 metres (38 ft) high. - What kinds of structures are these? More description is needed.
 * All I can find is that they are mounds, which I've added. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's something! Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Structure 46 is at the edge of Terrace 8 in the North Group and dates from the Terminal Classic through to the Postclassic. The west side of the structure has been cut by a modern road. - Could more description be added so the reader has a sense of what these remains look like?
 * Again, only that it is a mound. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Structure 54 is built upon Terrace 8, to the north of Structure 46, in the North Group. It is surrounded by an open area without mounds that was probably a mixed residential and agricultural area. It dates from the Terminal Classic through to the Postclassic - Could more description be added so the reader has a sense of what these remains look like?
 * It's probably covered by coffee plantations, but I can't find any confirmation of that - no further detail other than what is already there. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Structure 68 is in the West Group. A part of the western side of the structure has been cut by a modern road - Could more description be added so the reader has a sense of what these remains look like?
 * I've been able to give a little more detail but not much. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The great quantity of early Maya sculpture and the presence of early examples of Maya hieroglyphic writing suggest that the site played an important part in the development of Maya ideology - Could you add a few sentences explaining the development? What ideas do archaeologists think the site promoted, etc.?
 * Expanded somewhat. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Altar 1 is found at the base of Stela 1, it is rectangular in shape with a carving on its side - Do we know what the carving depicts?
 * The source translates as "a carved molding" - no further info and no illustration, I've put "carved molding" into the article and wikilinked. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume that if location or style are not mentioned in the descriptions of the monuments, they are unknown?
 * That is right - I used as much information as I had available...which is why there are jumps in numbering, where I simply don't have any information regarding the "missing" monuments etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be worth defining stela at the beginning of the "Inventory of stela" section.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a question about the sources from the Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala. What is this exactly? Is it a conference paper? Published proceedings of a conference? In my field, English literature, conference papers are not the best sources, but archaeology may be quite different in that regard.
 * These are a collection of archaeological field reports published to coincide with an annual archaeological conference in Guatemala city and are very highly regarded sources (in fact it would be difficult to find better sources - these are by the leading archaeologists working in Guatemala, and many include excavation diagrams, results etc.) These papers are regularly cited in the scholarly journals, books on the subject etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. That makes me feel better. ;) Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * With regards to the list issue raised by Manus, I am of two minds. I can see a much more concise and focused article with the lists split off, but the scholar in me wants the lists in this article, as list articles tend to lack the context that this one provides.
 * I would rather keep the lists, because they do illustrate the wealth of sculpture at the site. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting the article soon - I found it quite fascinating. Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you found it interesting! I've pulled up as much extra information as I can but in many cases there is just no further information available. I hope that the little extra info that I've managed to pull out goes some way towards satisfying your curiosity. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pending Awadewit. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I'm happy to support this article. It is clear, comprehensive, and well-researched. Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Awadewit! Simon Burchell (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a serious lack of WP:NBSPs on words joined with numbers; these are needed to prevent dangling numbers at line breaks. They aren't needed at the beginning of lines (there's a lot of that), since those won't wrap anyway, but they should be filled in within the text. I left samples. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the text and filled them in. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.