This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The article mentions an expedition "to Mexico in 1520 to oppose Hernán Cortés," but nothing more about this expedition. Can someone add more information? Karl gregory jones (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The function of the lead of an article is to give a summary of the topic that can stand alone. I.e. the lead of a biographical article should describe the main events in the persons life and particularly those for which he is known. Narvaez is known for his embarrassing defeat to the the vastly outnumbered Cortes and his death during the bothced florida expedition. So that should obviously be mentioned in the lead. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
But the lead is not a summary of the rest of the article. It seems to consume over half of the text in the article. I suggest that the details there be transferred into a section or sections below, with the lead reserved for a summary. Right now I, as a reader without any previous knowledge of the person, find the detail far too excessive in the beginning and it deters me from reading about this very interesting historical figure. Coretheapple (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I have to say that the way the article is currently written it is going to be very hard to untangle this, and unbundle the lead of all its detail, but it really has to be done. Coretheapple (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Be my guest. I saw an article about Panfilo de Narvaez that didnt include the main events for which he is notable and I added them with sources. That is as far as I am interested in contributing to this article at present. Sturcture the article as you wish but I suggest you look at the MOS and GA/FA quality articles about historical personalities. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I was just asked to give my opinion. I simply don't have enough interest in the subject matter to engage in that much work. I'm just here because I was asked my opinion by another editor. I wonder, though, if perhaps reverting to an earlier version might not be a simple interim solution. Coretheapple (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No, not if that is a version that is neither informative nor in keeping with the MOS. Sourced material can be removed if its factuality is challenged or if it is thought to give undue weight to fringe views, but not simply because you think it is "poorly written". Corinne can edit the prose if she likes instead of just reverting without a valid reason and then complaining at her friends' talkpages. You could also give some actual sggestions on how to improve the prose instead of just a generic complaint about the quality wich is not really actionable. I am in fact literate in English. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to get huffy. I was asked for an opinion and complied. You do have a point, procedurally. The best practice in such a situation is to ask for a third opinion rather than going to specific individuals. Also it is usually best to discuss such things initially on the talk page before going for help. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)