Wikipedia:Peer review/Nahuatl/archive1

Nahuatl



 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to make FA before too long. I would appreciate comments about content, style, language (English is not my mothertongue), layout, image use, etc. All and any copyediting is also appreciated - I've been working on the article so long now that I have become blind to my own shortcomings.

Thanks, ·Maunus· · ƛ · 15:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Peter Isotalo
Before getting into specific details, I'd like to bring up a general point about focus. As far as I know, language articles are treated as rather specifically linguistic topics. Literature is therefore treated in separate articles with some reasonable exceptions when describing the history of the language. I recommend making "Literature" a separate article.

Peter Isotalo 17:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it relevant to mention the literature because the body of existing literature is what makes Nahuatl stand out among the hundreds of languages of the Americas (as a number of the cited sources also state). Plus it is what the language is best known for. It is also the best studied aspect of the languages, and Nahuatl philology is generally treated by linguists as a linguistic topic. In the article about Mayan languages there is also a specific section about literature - albeit much smaller. I think the article would be incomplete with out a separate section about literature, but it could possibly be more summarical in nature. I do agree that we need a specific and much more detailed article about Nahuatl literature, as a matter of fact I have had that on the planning stage for a while now.·Maunus· · ƛ · 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An idea: How about we move the things about rhetorical style into a section under the "syntax" section and call it "ethnography of speaking" or "stylistics" or something like that. That would bring it more in line with the linguistic topic. Then the literature section would be only a small summary of the kinds of literature that exists in the language. How does that strike you?·Maunus· · ƛ · 19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think sorting it under "History" would be more arppropriate since we're dealing with a literay tradition that is pretty much dead (at least in writing).
 * Peter Isotalo 07:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the first part of the article in more detail and made a copyedit of the lead and "History". I'll start with the minor pointers that apply to the entire article: I took the liberty of combining some footnotes to the end of a paragraph or a sentence, but that's only my opinion. Unless we're talking about highly contentious facts, I don't believe the mere mention of any random general figure (like "proto-Nahuatl speakers entered Mesoamerica around 500 AD") really requires a dedicated reference. Either way, you're welcome to revert it if you feel that it might be contentious enough.
 * Make sure that you use either British or American spelling consistently. I've changed one instance of "marginalised" to "marginalized" since the article seems to be using American spelling, but I can't be sure.
 * The footnotes need to be standardized. There's a lot of them that come before punctuation and the notes themselves are a inconsistent. I've suggested the format "Smith (2008), p. 67" with a semicolon to separate references to two works in a single note. While this doesn't really matter that much either way, I don't believe the year needs to be specified to authors of only one source, such as Boas or Pickett.

I have some more specific comments about the history section:
 * Note 9, the one that explains the alternative theory of the origin of the Uto-Aztecan languages, seems like pretty important information. I think it would be appropriate to include it inthe main body of the article in a somewhat shortened format.
 * The second sentence of "Colonial period" says that "...the Spanish allied themselves with the Nahuatl speakers from Tlaxcala and later with the conquered Aztecs." What exactly does "allied" mean here? I was under the impression that the Spanish conquered the Aztecs and subjugated them by allying with their enemies. Did the Spanish use the Aztecs as allies when conquering other peoples as well?
 * There's a mention of "mundane documents" as part of the colonial Nahuatl literature. Does this refer to bureaucractic by-products or profane literature such as works on agriculture and etiquette?

Peter Isotalo 09:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I admit that it has a lot of sources - this stems from my experience in a previous FA where reviewers demanded citations for almost everything. I wished to be ahead pof them this time and have made sure to have good sources for any claim I made this time.
 * about note 9: I am reluctant to put it into the text because I am not certain about how influential the idea has been. I have read a lot about proto-uto-aztecan history for the past 5 years and I only stumbled on that article on google scholar the other day, and frankly I was amazed that this view would have been proposed, given the good evidence and wide consensus about Uto-aztecans northern origins. I have not seen it mentioned in any influential studies about uto-aztecan prehistory, in other words I suspect it of being a fringe view and I am afraid of giving it undue weight. I would like to investigate more about how the scholarly community have received the paper before including it in the article.
 * about the allies, yes that is exactly what they did. Cortés for example brought not only tlaxcaltecs but large numbers of mexica (aztecs) with him on his campaign to honduras. When the spanish and tlaxcallan forces conquered tenochtitlan they instated a ruler of their, which in effect made tenochtitlan a puppet state of the spanish. This meant that Mexican forces under the command of their own ruler (albeit a puppet) accompanied spnaish soldiers in their efforts to subdue other mesoamerican peoples.
 * It referred mostly to bureaucratic byproducts when I wrote it, but actually also the latter. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 09:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Very satisfying replies, Maunus. Thank you. My only recommendation is that you clarify "mundane" a bit more. "Profane" would probably be better, but you could also give one or two examples of what it actually meant.
 * When it comes to the citations, I think you could probably cut down on the references to entire books in some cases. The referencing should be proportional to the obscurity (even within the topic itself), vagueness and contentiousness of any given fact.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To add to my arguments about citations, my impression of the meticulous referencing in the article is that of slight overkill. For example, statements about what the Aztecs called themselves and their language seems like something that isn't the least bit contentious and not obscure enough to require a separate citation. I also quite don't see the point of providing separate references for language samples and the likes. Repeating references to pages 61-63 in Suárez (1983) over and over really just pads the number of footnotes without really improving the referencing in any meaningful way. If anything, mere translations of sample sentences and the likes does not require separate referencing.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the nomenclature, you'd be surprise how controversial it is. Not because there is any doubt in the sources or among specialists, but its the kind of things laymen drop by and argue against almost monthly - only because they believe in some other version they've been taught at school. I personally think that language examples and translations need meticulous sourcing simply because it is important that people know where the examples come from - because any translation can be argued against, and any example can contain mistakes. It is better that it is Suárez mistake than for it to be wikipedias. But of course a single not could state that all the examples given are from Suarez.·Maunus· · ƛ · 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with how contentious language topics can be, but I'm also aware that the most stubborn and shrill criticism usually comes from people who haven't read a single page of scholarly research and usually motivate their actions by claiming they "know the language". The referencing of research is yours to decide, but I would like to insist that the translation references would be improved by not being scattered. You could just as well gather them up in one or two footnotes.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done that. It is a good point.·Maunus· · ƛ · 08:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read through on down to "Grammar", and I have some more comments: Peter Isotalo 11:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Nahuan subgroup of Uto-Aztecan is classified partly by a number of shared phonological changes from reconstructed Proto-Uto-Aztecan (PUA) to the attested Nahuan languages." This sentence in the first paragraph of "Phonology" is rather difficult to decipher. I see the general meaning, but I think I think the sentence needs to be somewhat simplified.
 * In "Phonology" I found this statement: "giving a complete overview of the phonologies of Nahuan languages is not suitable here." This would be suitable in an essay, but it sounds somewhat odd in an encyclopedia. The statement should be more along the lines of "the details are very complex" or something like it. The suitability of any given level of detail, however, should be more implicit.
 * I'm assuming that "phonemic stress" means that variying stress patterns can change the meaning of words. Whatever the case, it needs to be explained to those who aren't familiar with linguistic terminology.
 * There's a rather longish bullet list illustrating various phonological changes. In a sub-article like Nahuatl phonology it would be appropriate, but in a main article it's very tedious. Could this be shortened to just two or three examples and preferably converted into prose. "Grammar" is also rather long-winded in examples and could just as well be more stringent in its summary style.
 * The literal translations of the sample sentences need to be a bit clearer. The grammar needs to be clearly separated from the semantics, preferably with different fonts or something. For an example of how to solve this, see Nobiin.
 * I had been wanting to do the small capitals thing, I just didn't know how it worked. Its done now.·Maunus· · ƛ · 08:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)