|Maya stelae is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 17, 2011.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Maya stela for today
I don't think so, since this article is not particularly discussing Maya script or calendrics but rather the origin and use of the stones themselves. Thanks anyway, Simon Burchell (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Maya stelae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GAN on hold
I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it (if necessary). If you disagree with a particular issue, state your rationale for doing so after the issue in question so a compromise can be reached.
"The earliest dated stela to ever have been found in situ..." It's great to bring some Latin into the article, but I don't think the average reader is going to know what it means. Either reword or consider linking it.
"The production of stelae by the Maya had its origin around 400 BC and continued through to the end of the Classic Period, around 900 AD, although some monuments were reused in the Postclassic." Since the Classic Period time frame is mentioned above, it would be a good idea to define the Postclassic period. Also, include the time frames in the first occurrence of the Function section in case readers bypass the lead as well as for any other periods mentioned in the article.
"Epigrapher David Stuart first proposed that the Maya regarded their stelae as te tun, stone trees, although he later revised his reading to lakamtun, meaning "banner stone"..." "stone trees"
"This may refer to the stelae as..." As currently written, this sounds like OR, so if an author has indicated this then it would be a good idea to specify. Do the same for the statement at the end of the next paragraph and for the other occurrences in the article. Avoid words such as "appears, may, possibly, probably, etc."
- Well, I changed the first but in the second instance I changed it to "probably". No-one is completely sure of what really happened when working from archaeological remains but the general view is that the altars were used as thrones and/or ritual pedestals. I'm somewhat reluctant to put in something as definite when it is not, since this is misleading. I could put "according to Stuart" but in fact many other authors and archaeologists refer to this kind of usage. See also my comment under 9. below. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's good to include the "according to Stuart". If you want to mention other archaeologists/authors, that would help introduce their thoughts on the stelea. However, by using those list of words to avoid within the article, it appears to be on speculation (even when supported by a source). If archaeologists/authors are unsure, then we can indicate that with the introduction of statements such as "according to", "author indicates that", or "archaeologists have been unable to determine, but believe". We should allow the reader to see that the person being referred to is unsure, rather than just state it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
"The stela displayed the wealth and prestige of the king and depicted him wielding the symbols of military and divine power, it also documented the ancestry of the ruler." This should be reworded or the comma replaced with a semicolon.
"At Tikal, the twin pyramid groups reflected Maya cosmology, these groups were built to celebrate the k'atun ending, with pyramids on the east and west sides representing the birth and death of the sun, a nine-doored building on the south side represented the underworld and to the north was a walled enclosure, open to the sky, the represented the celestial region." This sentence would benefit from being reworded.
"An important feature of stelae was that they were able to survive different phases of architectural construction, unlike architectural sculpture itself." "unlike the architectural"...?
"David Stuart has stated that stelae "do not simply commemorate past events and royal ceremonies but serve to perpetuate the ritual act into eternity"."
- Not sure what you mean here. Have I put the full stop in the wrong place? Simon Burchell (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Reword the statements in the first paragraph of the Manufacture section as it may be considered OR.
- All statements are cited to specific pages of sources so I don't think that they can really be interpreted as OR, in fact this is true throughout the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Same thing as mentioned above, helping to introduce who stated these assumptions or something about the stelae's location, shape, placement, etc. that would suggest "captive artisans from defeated cities were put to work raising stelae" would help to clarify for the reader. Starting off with "it appears" does not provide an idea on who (or what) is making the suggestion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
"Royal artisans were sometimes responsible for sculpting stelae, some of these artisans were the sons of kings." This sentence doesn't flow well, try and reword/rearrange it.
"Stelae were usually crafted from quarried limestone. In the Southern Maya area other types of stone were preferred." These two sentences could be combined.
The great city of Calakmul in Mexico imported black slate for one stela from the Maya Mountains, over 320 kilometres (200 mi) distant." What is meant by "great city"? Also, how about "over a distance of 320..."?
- I've rephrased "great city" as "powerful city" and "over 320km" as "more than 320km". Simon Burchell (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
"In the southern Maya area, the Late Preclassic stelae impressed upon the viewer the achievements of the king and his right to rule, they reinforced both his political and religious power." This should be reworded to flow better.
"On the Pacific Coast...." All of the sentences in this paragraph have the same issue as above where the last clause in each sentence doesn't tie to the rest of the sentence. Maybe consider using a semicolon or rewording to help improve the transition.
"Features formerly found on architectural sculpture, such as the giant masks adorning Preclassic pyramids, were adapted for use on stelae, for instance the so-called "Jester God" was transferred to the headdress of the ruler portrayed on Tikal Stela 29, which bears the oldest Long Count date yet found in the Maya lowlands - equating to AD 292." Split this into two sentences.
"In the Late Classic the sculpted images of rulers on stelae remained much the same as in the Early Classic, appearing in profile in the foreground and filling almost the entire available space, which is delimited by a frame." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone. Either expand on it or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix any other occurrences in the article (such as the one at the end of the same section).
"In the north, Coba on the eastern side of the Yucatán Peninsula raised at least 23 large stelae, although badly eroded their style and texts link them to cities from the Petén Basin." Split into two sentences.
The article doesn't cover how the giant stones were transported from the quarries. Were animals, carts, etc. used?
The article would also benefit with a section that discusses how the stelae are viewed today. Are there museums, restoration efforts, replicas, etc.?
For the citations, there are duplicate entries when the same book and page number are used. When the same page is cited, replace the second (and any additional occurrences) with the <ref name="Miller99p9">. Look to other articles for examples or see here.
Altogether, this article was informative on the topic and is well-sourced. Good job on making use of so many free images. Most of the above issues shouldn't be too difficult to address, but if you have any questions on them, please let me know. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article may be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If necessary to address the above issues, and progress is being made, an extension may be provided. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Good job with addressing the above issues. I believe the article meets the GA criteria and have passed the article. I would recommend adding a few external links to allow readers to pursue further information beyond the print sources. Continue to maintain the article to ensure it upholds its GA status. The article is close to FA and I would recommend having a few people copyedit it further and pursue a peer review.
Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the very large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. If you are new to reviewing and want to familiarize yourself with the process, study the GA criteria, look at other editors' reviews, and leave any questions you have at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations if you need feedback while performing a review.
Keep up the good work, and I encourage you to continue to bring articles up to good article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
06:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This article says that the singular is "stela", but the correct singular form is "stele" per the article stele and what I've seen outside of wikipedia.
I found these 2 footnotes with "Olmedo Vera" lacking their reference:
- 6. Miller 1999, p.88. Olmedo Vera 1999, p.24.
- 89. Olmedo Vera 1999, p.24.
I did some search by the name of the author, and found this book on Google Books: Los Templos Rojos Del Recinto Sagrado de Tenochtitlan However, the publishing year is 2002 instead of 1999 as the footnotes provided. Then I searched WorldCat , but I couldn't find any book published in 1999 by the same author. I also searched Google Scholar  and found this paper: La culture maya, which is published in 1999, but the page number is "pp. 90-105", only 16 pages. It doesn't look like the reference we want. Can anyone else verify this for me? Thank you. p.s. sorry for my poor English.hookjaw (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've dropped in the ref and double-checked it. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem - either I just forgot to put it in when I wrote the article, or I accidentally deleted it during development... Simon Burchell (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)