|Oaxaca was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|WikiProject Mexico||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
ÁI've put in an external link on the guaje tree, though obviously this should move to an article on the tree once someone writes one. seglea 22:19, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Great novel, but it's set in Morelos, not Oaxaca. (Isn't it?) There's plenty to be added to the Under the Volcano article, though. –Hajor 00:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
religion in oaxaca?
seriously, someone needs to put in something other than mormonism in that section. as far as i'm concerned, if a mormon temple is the only thing in the section, the section should be deleted until there's more information. i don't know enough to contribute myself, but i do know enough to know that the lds church is NOT the only game in town. i'd be REALLY surprised if it was the biggest. that section is a total travesty. if anyone can add to it, that would be greatly appreciated. I'll do research myself if i can. if not, can it just be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neutralrobotboy 08:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
I agree. I'm sure there's lots of Cathlolics there too, after all it is Mexico.... SeizureToday
Let's remember the obvious, our multicultural society is becoming more diverse--even in religion! Although much of the population identifies with being catholic or christian, people are learning to think for themselves and make decisions that diverge from Church teachings. Shamanism & Spiritualism in this region honors our ancestors, while calling upon us to use their wisdom, love, and inspiration to be better people, regardless of the building we worship in.Hopefulhope (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Hopefulhope (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)hopefulhope
Actually there is a large population of Babtist East of Puerto Escondido also. At one time or another there had to be a Babtist mission come to the area and teach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
people people i need 2 know practically everythinqq about OAXACA. and seriously none of this is helpinqq me. i have 2 turn this in tomorrow, and i qqot nothinqq! uqqh): —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Mitla as a Zapotec name
I don't think the name Mitla is Zapotec. es:Mitla says it is called Lyobaa or "place of rest" in Zapotec. Now, the name is Nahuatl is Mictlan "place of the dead"; I seem to recall reading that the name Mitla comes from Mictlan. 188.8.131.52 05:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
NPOV problems: 2006 protests
It is possible to have diverse points of view about the 2006-7 protests. I have attempted to revise this section to meet NPOV guidelines. In particular the use of the terms "terrorist" and "thugs" to describe the APPO violates these guidelines. To call the APPO a "newly-formed political group" is merely factual, and does not imply approval of their beliefs or actions. To call them demonstrators does not imply approval of these demonstrations, while the term "thugs" clearly expresses an opinion. Having made these changes twice and seen them reverted, and wishing to avoid an edit war, I am alerting Wikipedians to the problem by inserting an NPOV warning in this section. Finn Froding (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have reverted the use of "thugs" and "terrorists" in the past as well, and I agree they should not be used. The IP user who keeps inserting them does not seem interested in discussing the situation, so if he/she/it continues to revert them, I suggest they be reported for disruptive editing. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 03:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since the IP has been blocked from making POV edits here, due to it being semi-protected, it has now moved onto the article that deals directly with the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca, making the same POV edits there. Since "it" does not seem to want to discuss its repeated POV edits, I have requested a semi-protect of that article too. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 03:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hola Ivanpares, estoy de acuerdo. ¿Qué sugeriría usted? --nsaum75¡שיחת! 04:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
pienso que del siguiente modo estaría bien, ya que se da una idea del conflicto y se sugiere la pagina a ver en caso de que se quiera profundizar más al respecto, pero no lo voy a cambiar hasta que usted y por lo menos otra persona de su visto bueno, ya que es un tema muy polémico. atentamente —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanpares (talk • contribs)
El 22 de mayo de 2006 se inició un conflicto magisterial; una huelga de profesores de la sección 22 del Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación (SNTE). El 14 de junio, el gobernador Ulises Ruiz Ortiz ordenó a cientos de policías intentar desalojar a los maestros. En respuesta a estos actos de represión cometidos por el gobernador diversas organizaciones, ONG y asociaciones forman la llamada Asamblea Popular de los Pueblos de Oaxaca, que exigía la renuncia del Gobernador. Ver: conflicto de Oaxaca 2006—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanpares (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
2006 ProtestsMain article: 2006 Oaxaca protestsOn 22 May 2006 a teachers strike was began by teachers belonging to section 22 of the National Union of Education Workers (SNTE). On June 14, Gov. Ulises Ruiz Ortiz ordered hundreds of police to try to evict the protesting teachers from the buildings and streets they were occupying. In response to the governor's order, various organizations, NGOs and associations formed the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO), and demanded the resignation of Governor.
I can live with this pared down version, since there is already a large article devoted to the conflict. Comments??
Yo apoyo esta nueva versión, porque ya existe un artículo dedicado a las protestas. Comentarios?? --nsaum75¡שיחת! 05:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Oaxaca/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- a.the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; Disagree
- Comment: The prose is not good. It seems to be written by a non-native speaker, or possibly translated from Spanish. On a quick readthrough I encountered many (more than 10) typoes, and many more strange sentence constructions. It needs a very thorough copyedit by a native English speaker (i.e. not me).·Maunus·ƛ· 00:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Disagree
- Comment: It has large incorporated lists and galleries, both of which are discouraged by the MOS. The Lead is also not completely in compliance with WP:LEAD, in that it could provide a more comprehensive summary of the article - the article is long so the Lead is allowed to be longer.00:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·
2.Factually accurate and verifiable:
- a. it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
- b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged
- Comment: I read the history sectionclosely and I was not impressed by the sources used. It relies on too few sources of too low quality. For example the "Enciclopedia de los Municipios de México Estado de Oaxaca." is not a very reliable source for historical information, as it relies only on older Mexican publications and theories and doesn't take into account newer scholarship. Ardoñez source is also not so goodthat it deserves to be cited almost 20 times. There are many better sources in English which could be used. For the precolumbian part of the history section I would reccommend Artur A Joyce's "Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico", for the colonial period Terraciano's Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca provides good information. The section provides several misleading or incorrect statements - e.g. that Zapotecs and Mixtecs largely conformed to colonial rule - there were major Zapotec rebellions in 1550, 1560, 1715 and 1850 some of which were close to causing serious damage to the viceroyal rule. Several other minor mistakes and misrepresentations make it clear that better sources are required and the main editors should read more extensively about the subject.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- c.it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Agree 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images Agree
- a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
At this very early stage in the review I think I would already reccomend de-nominating and undertaking serious copyediting and rewriting of the article using a wider spectre of sources, preferably of a more academic kind. If the nominating editor believes he has the will, the skill and the time to turn this article into a GA I will not fail it, but put it on hold and we'll keep working, but the nominator should be aware that it is a job that will require a lot of time and research on his behalf (And as he has several other GA nominations listed, delisting for the time being may be a better option). ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I think Thelma was right, it isn't worth it. Thanks for your comments, can we de-nominate this one then? I'm afraid I don't have access to specialist books on Oaxaca.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I'll take care of that.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are some more up-to-date, specialized books on Oaxaca in my employer's library, however they are all in Spanish, which is why I refrained from adding them into the article. Would it pose that big of an issue if they were used in a future GA nom, as long as they were properly cited? --nsaum75¡שיחת! 14:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- If they are good books written by respected academics the language they are written in doesn't matter. I would encourage you to look for English language literature as well, Mexican and Anglo academic traditions do tend to form different perspectives on a lot of points and both should be represented in the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Governor's political party
Hi everybody. I was checking the page, and I saw that the page says the current governor is from PAN and PRD. That is incorrect, because although those parties supported him to be governor, he's not a member. His party is Convergence (Convergencia). I hope someone takes care of it and in some other pages, and even maps! Thanks. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Oaxaca/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I usually use a template to do a full review, but there are several things that jump out at me as needing to be addressed before a full review can commence. Due to this, I am going to post some initial comments here, and once they have been addressed, I will review the article in full. Initial thoughts:
- Work on referencing is needed. For example:
- Fact tag in the The arts section, one in Landmarks and tourist attractions, two in Higher education, one in Sport.
- Seven dead links that should be fixed or replaced, see here
- Ref #8 (www.pesomexicano.com.mx.) is also not working, although it's not listed on the list of dead links.
- Ref #97 (Surfer.com) is also not working, although it's not listed on the list of dead links.
- I am very unimpressed with the quality of references used:
- What makes ref #10 (Explorando Mexico) a reliable reference?
- What makes ref #12, 69 (MexConnect) a reliable reference?
- What makes ref #39 (Oaxaca Tarvel site.) a reliable reference?
- What makes ref #47 (Lagunas de Chacahua) a reliable reference?
- What makes ref #49 (PLANETA.COM.) a reliable reference?
- What makes refs #50, 98 (Oaxaca's Tourist Guide) a reliable reference?
- What makes ref #52 (Huatulco Tour Guide) a reliable reference?
- What makes ref #74 (Mexonline.com) a reliable reference?
- What makes ref #75 (George & Audrey DeLange) a reliable reference?
- What makes ref #99 (River Rafting in Huatulco) a reliable reference?
- Disambiguation needed tag in Nature and conservation
- What is the criteria for the Famous people section? If kept, it seems a bit biased towards politicians and painters, at the moment! Also, needs references.
- This article is currently at over 11,800 words, which is well beyond the 6,000-10,000 word maximum recommended by WP:SIZE. I would suggest considering whether there is information which could be cut or moved to daughter articles.
Due to the referencing problems alone, I am strongly tempted to simply fail the GA nomination for this article. However, it is possible that this work could be done within the normal time frame of GAN, and so I am willing the give the nominator (and others) a shot at it. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)