Wikipedia:Peer review/Central America under Mexican rule/archive1

Central America under Mexican rule


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for Featured article candidacy in the near future and I want to ensure that this article is not missing anything major which would fail any of the featured article criteria. Anything copyedit related shouldn't be necessarily as it went through the GOCE earlier this year.

Thanks! PizzaKing13  ¡Hablame!  06:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Kaiser matias
I'll go through this in the next few days, and my thoughts. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) I read through the article, and have some comments. Note I did not read explicitly for prose or style (unless it impacted my ability to comprehend what I was reading), but more for my understanding of the topic at hand, which I am not familiar with:

It's a fairly good article, though I think someone more experienced in terms of prose should go through, as it could be cleaned up a bit that way. Overall though it seems comprehensive and nothing overtly standing out as an issue. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "...Supreme Executive Power—the provisional government that succeeded imperial rule." Clarify that this was imperial rule in Mexico, as it's ambiguous.
 * Fixed
 * "Agustín invited Ferdinand VII, any member of his immediate family, or any other Spanish Bourbon prince to rule as the emperor of Mexico." Did anyone acknowledge this offer? Seeing how Agustin took the throne for himself I would think not, but is there any information about a reply from the Bourbon side?
 * The Bourbons didn't explicitly reject the throne, but they did reject the Treaty of Córdoba which the Mexicans interpreted as rejecting the throne. Added.
 * There are a lot of links to common terms (referendum, annexation, armistice, etc) that can be removed.
 * Fixed
 * Thanks for your comments so far! PizzaKing13   ¡Hablame!  22:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Best of luck for when you go to FAC. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Query from Z1720
It has been a month since the last comment on this PR. Are you still looking for comments, or is this ready to be closed and nominated at WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Z1720 and @PizzaKing13, I would like to take a look and will post my comments if I have any. Could we hold the PR open till then? I was planning on commenting here but forgot. Matarisvan (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We can hold it open as long as you want, but please know that the longer a PR stays open, the less likely it is to get comments. Z1720 (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a look at this now, but may not be able to write up a review for a few days, so please leave this open a bit longer. RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * status? PizzaKing13   ¡Hablame!  19:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was afk for a couple of weeks and couldn't post my comments. I will have them on here by today or tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from RoySmith
This is a long article; I'll be taking this in small chunks as I find time, probably spread out over the next week. Take all of these as suggestions, not demands. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On 16 September 1810, criollo priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla issued the Cry of Dolores, beginning the Mexican War of Independence from the Spanish Empire in New Spain—Spain's colony that encompassed modern-day Mexico, Central America, and the southwestern United State That's a mouthful of a sentence. Maybe a full stop after Cry of Dolores then pick up with, "This began the..."?
 * Changed


 * was made as a result of -> "was a reaction to"?
 * Changed


 * which overthrew Spanish King Ferdinand VII, it's not clear if "which" refers to "his declaration" or "Napolean's invasion".
 * Clarified


 * Napoleon's invasion of Spain WP:SEAOFBLUE
 * Fixed


 * Although Ferdinand VII was restored I'm not sure what standard practice is, but since there's only one Ferdinand mentioned in this article, I'd be inclined to say "Ferdinand VII" the first time, and just "Ferdinand" thereafter.
 * WP:NCROY doesn't say anything about this situation. All it says about ordinals are don't add it for monarchs lower than a king/emperor, don't add it for pretenders, and don't add it for one-time monarch names unless otherwise common. I just removed it.


 * Although Ferdinand VII was restored in 1814, the constitution of 1812 was suspended, and some in New Spain were not satisfied with his reign. this reads as a list of three things: 1) Ferdinand was restored, 2) the constitution was suspended, and 3) some were not satisfied. I don't think that's what you intended.
 * Reordered to make it clearer


 * On 24 February 1821, Agustín de Iturbide, a Mexican general fighting for independence, published his Plan of the Three Guarantees in the city of Iguala, outlining his vision for the new independent Mexican state. Another overly-long sentence. Maybe a full stop after "Three Guarantees", then new sentence: "This outlined..."?  Actually, I'm not sure how to parse this.  Is it "his plan of the Three Guarantees in the city of Iguala", or is Iguala just where the publication happened?
 * Split. Iguala is where it was published, it is also called the "Plan of Iguala".


 * It contained three key provisions: the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, that Catholicism would be the state religion and would receive special protections, and that the army and people of both European descent and mestizos (people of mixed-European and indigenous ancestry) would also receive special protections Hmmm, this is starting to become a pattern; sentences so long and complicated I get lost before I reach the end.  For example, when I get to "and would receive", I'm thinking, "OK, I'm parsing a list of what I've been told will be three things.  You've told me two of them, so now I'm expecting what comes after the 'and' to be the third"  Maybe (in addition to splitting into two sentences), "Catholicism would be the state religion (receiving special protections) and that the army ..."
 * Fixed


 * any member of his immediate family whose immediate family: Ferdinand's or Iturbide's?
 * Clarified

With an organization like that, the reader will be able to follow the flow of events as they happenein order, and how each one set the stage for the next. And then when you finally get up to 1821, you need to explain how the government of the time was organized. What was the regency council, what power did it's president have, what power did the emperor have, and how was the emperor's position related to the president's position? RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Until an emperor could be appointed, Iturbide held the position of president of the regency council unopposed. What's the relationship between the positions of emperor and president of the council? How does appointing an emperor create opposition for the president?
 * "Emperor not appointed? President of the Council rules until there is one. There is an Emperor? Presidency ceases to exist." I think this is understood and that the sentence is fine.
 * Well, I don't understand it :-) I know almost nothing about how constitutional monarchies work, and even less about Mexico's history.  I think it would be good to start off by explaining the status quo before 1810, and proceed in chronological fashion, something like "At the beginning of the 19th century, the area which encompasses modern-day Mexico, Central America, and the southwestern United States was part of the spanish colony of New Spain. In (year) France invaded Spain (overthrew Ferdinand, installed Joseph, etc), leading to criollo priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla issuing the Cry of Dolores on 16 Septermber 1810, etc.  In 1812 Spain got a bright shiny new constitution, which was suspened in 1814 when Ferdinand was restored as king.  In 1820, high-ranking ...."
 * The sources don't explain what the regency council is or its powers. It just says it exists because it holds the power the emperor would since the council acts as regent. Once there is an emperor, the council ceases to exist. "Until an emperor could be appointed, Iturbide held the position of president of the regency council unopposed." PizzaKing13   ¡Hablame!  05:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far! PizzaKing13  ¡Hablame!  19:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The declarations of independence of Mexico (left) and Central America (right) You've linked "Mexico" and "Central America". I assumed they linked to Mexico and Central America, see WP:EASTEREGG.  I was looking for the English translations of those documents, but it never occurred to me that those links would actually take me to the articles where those translations were given.

(moving on to "Central American Independence")
 * Central America, which had been administered as a colony of Spain under the Captaincy General of Guatemala (also known as the Kingdom of Guatemala) since 1568,[15] launched attempted rebellions in 1811 and 1814 [es] to gain independence. another overly-complex sentence. I'd split this in two: "Central America had been ... since 1568.  It launched ..."  If you want, you could join that second sentence to the next: "... to gain independence; both attempts were ..."  At least that way, you'd end up with one sentence that's talking about the status prior to 1811, and another that's talking about the rebellions.  You could drop "attempted"; that's implied by "attempts were suppressed".
 * Fixed


 * Gabino Gaínza, the captain general of Guatemala, opposed independence, but ultimately moved to support independence once its proponents told him that he could remain as captain general even after independence

I'm going to stop here, for risk of being repetitive. I like the fact that you're not writing a stodgy series of simple sentences. For example, I see this style of writing a lot in other FACs: "Gabino Gainza was the captain general of Guatemala. He opposed independence.  Proponents told him he could remain as captain general after independence.  Then he supported independence" and it's painful to read. Your flowing style is a pleasure by comparison, but I think you overdo it (at least for my taste). My overall suggestion is to go through the entire text and look for sentences that digress more than one level. For example, the above sentence is fundamentally "Gabino Gaínza initially opposed independence but changed his mind". And then you start hanging additional stuff on that scaffolding. You explain who he is ("the captain general of Guatemala"). And then you expound on why he changed his mind. Either of those would be good, but packing both into the sentence I think becomes overload. As another example, a little later:


 * Gaínza, who had assumed the political leadership of both Guatemala and the Consultive Junta under the title of Superior Political Chief,[33] was in favor of annexation, as was Bishop Nicolás García Jerez of Nicaragua and the Aycinena clan [es] of Guatemala is basically "Gainza, Bishop Jerez, and the Aycinena clan were all in favor of annexation", but that's wrapped up in so much additional information, by the time I got to the end of the sentence, I was lost.  Anyway, I hope that's useful, even if I didn't do a complete review. RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I'll go through the article to split very long sentences if I find any. PizzaKing13   ¡Hablame!  17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that I see you've got WP:ALT text for all of your images. That's not strictly a WP:FACR, but I like to see them, as do many of the FAC regulars, so good that you've done that. RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Airship

 * This reads like the opening to a popular history book, not an encyclopedia article. I would suggest devoting a sentence or two to the history of New Spain at the start of the body prose.
 * I'll get back to this.


 * is a definite article needed?
 * Fixed


 * the article is not clear on the progress of the Mexican War of Independence between its outbreak and 1821.
 * I'm not very knowledgable on the Mexican War of Independence and I don't know how much to include without going into too much unnecessary detail. I'll get back to this.


 * was he already in this position? did he obtain it? did he invent it? what is the regency council?
 * I'll come back to this.


 * verb needed
 * Fixed


 * sentences can be merged; "and supported independence" is unnecessary
 * Fixed


 * bit of a lengthy sentence this. what does "members of an independent Central American country" mean?
 * Split and reworded


 * what ideological alignment? and to whom in the Mexican Empire?
 * Monarchism, added before "Mexican Empire" since its the only place i could fit in the word with it sounding right; the Mexican Empire in general, no one in particular.


 * plurals needed?
 * Fixed, oversight from when the sentence was structured differently


 * not a complete sentence
 * Merged with the previous sentence


 * the comma before "however" needs to be either a semicolon or a full stop.
 * Full stop, removed however.


 * this is a bit wordy in terms of subject-object confusion; try to simplify it.
 * Should be more straight forward now


 * confusing sentence; why is opposition to independence to Spain relevant; why was the no consensus "definitive"?
 * I'd say "neutral" is a more accurate assessment than there being no definitive consensus; changed to neutral. Independence from Spain was a factor as to why Costa Rice was neutral in the first place since they were basically now trying to evaluate how its future would unfold; explained that. Expanded the section in general.


 * wording is odd, try finding another word than "supplied"
 * Changed to reinforced


 * the "who had" phrase needs to directly follow Iturbide's name.
 * Fixed. Me thinking why on Earth I had it structured like that: "????"


 * why?
 * Because of Delgados' symbolic religious support. Fixed.

Please ping me when you take this to FAC. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you comments so far. I'll get back to those 3 things I mentioned within the next week. Any particular reason you want me to ming you when I bring it to FAC? PizzaKing13   ¡Hablame!  23:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Query from Z1720
It has been over a month since the last comment. Are you ready to close this and nominate it for FAC? Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am ready to close this nomination. PizzaKing13   ¡Hablame!  18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Instructions on closing PRs are at WP:PRG. Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)