||This category has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice if and when the backlog is cleared.
"WP:Review" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:Reviewing.
Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking.
Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
||The peer review list on this page is automatically generated: please follow the steps on the instructions page to add or remove a review.
I, along with Kailash29792 and Ssven2, am aiming to bring Mayabazar to FA status upon a suggestion by Dr. Blofeld. Mayabazar happens to be my first attempt at a FA, second for Ssven2 and third for Kailash29792. Thanks, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- For Telugu language sources use
|language=Telugu in the cite templates.
--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
For the Telugu language titles in the references, you have used the corresponding English title in braces. Please use the trans_title parameter in the citation where it should be ideally placed. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi bro, why dont you add details in popular culture for instance please check out the Telugu films in which the songs from this film has been parodied. "Vivaha Bhojanambu" was reused in animation film Ghatothkacha. Not only Aha Naa Pellanta, even other songs were also named as films. Srivin (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Srivin: I thought of that and it is best to add the info. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 June 2015, 04:13 UTC)----
Any feed back or comments more than welcome. Thanks Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 31 May 2015, 16:39 UTC)----
I've listed this article for peer review because the review will be followed by a nomination for WP:FAC. Before this happens, please bring on the appeals for further improvement. I'll return as soon as possible to review the review(s). Cheers, Glitchygirl (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- No review. Archiving now. Glitchygirl (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 May 2015, 01:50 UTC)----
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently overhauled it and successfully nominated it for GA, and intend to nominate it for FAC after peer review. If you have a PR or GAN you would like me to review in return for your review here, just mention it at the end of your review. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- The soundtrack roll probably needs citations
- I did a copy edit seen here
Mind reviewing this for me at it's GAN?--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Track listing doesn't need citations, is it the 'Other songs in the film' that you're referring to? Thanks for looking at the article and for the copyedits. I'm going away for the weekend but i'll review your GAN Monday if nobody else does it before then. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: Somone already "failed it", so could you mind to review this for me instead
- Done. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 10 May 2015, 09:15 UTC)----
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review to get some more comments before I re-nominate this article for FAC. I've already fixed the problems with the article that people mentioned at the last FAC, so I'm just looking for some comments.
Thanks, BenLinus1214talk 21:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 9 May 2015, 21:26 UTC)----
Need a peer review to keep up with GT status of MCU films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 30 April 2015, 15:58 UTC)----
I've listed this article for peer review because after a successful GAN I would like to get more feedback on the article regarding its current quality in relation to the FAC criteria. I plan to leave this PR open until May 31, so if you plan to review or add comments here please do so several days prior to that date so that I will have enough time to adequately address concerns.
Thanks, Rationalobserver (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
|Collapse completed review
First batch. More to come:
- Rightly or wrongly a convention – not, as far as I can see, backed by the MoS – has grown up that regardless of what has already been said in the lead a topic or person should be introduced in context at first mention in the main text. Thus "the 1849 Simpson expedition" would be better as something on the lines of "the first American expedition in 1849"
- Background and discovery
- "the Mexican–American War of 1846–1848" – I'm pretty certain the MoS asks for date ranges to be in the form "1846–48".
- "especially well preserved room" – I get in tangle with hyphens, but I think you want one in "well-preserved" here. You might canvass other views on this point.
- "caused the Smithsonian to withdraw their support" – I don't at all object to the plural pronoun, but I understood that especially in AmEng corporate entities are usually referred to in the singular.
- "Department of Archeology and Anthropology" – are you sure about the spelling here? The university's site appears to use the spelling "Archaeology"
- "Gordon Vivian, father of R. Gwinn Vivian, Edwin Ferdon, Paul Reiter, and Florence Hawley" – I'd put "father of R. Gwinn Vivian" in brackets rather than just commas: at present it reads as though the old boy had rather a lot of children.
- "charcoal found therein" – a bit fustian, except for lawyers; perhaps just "in it"?
- "Archeologists theorize" – unanimously? If not, who?
- "most-accurate" – hyphen definitely not wanted here, I think#
- "1929–1933 group" – date range, as above
- "no copper bells as expected" – ambiguous: was it the bells or their absence that was expected? And in either case, why would they or it have been expected?
- "both of which are considered unique" – by whom?
- "archeologists believe" – all of them? If not, which?
- "are still present there" – does "present" add anything here?
- "which is located in" – here and immediately below, "located" is another word that seems to add nothing, and could be dispensed with.
More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 16:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tim riley! I think I've adequately "processed" the first batch (). I chose to avoid individual attribution wherever possible, as that is an issue that I've been bounced around a bit on lately, with some asking for more and others asking for less. If in-text attribution is needed in any particular spots I'll happily add them, but for the most part I am trying to learn to minimize them, or at least avoid all but the most necessary ones. I look forward to your next comments, but by no means should you feel rushed, as their is no need to hurry. Thanks for taking the time to help me with this! RO(talk) 16:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Second and concluding batch
- An explosion fueled by rainfall is a strikingly mixed image
- "The last significant construction" – what did it signify? It is a pity to use "significant", which has its own meaning, as a mere synonym of "major" or "important"
- I didn’t quite get the hang of this: you start off with an unequivocal statement, without citation, and then say that some authorities dispute it. I’d be happier with something on the lines of A & B say x but C & D say y.
- "de-population" – both the AmEng dictionaries I consulted (Mirriam-Webster and Collins) omit the hyphen
- Note 6 – "buried below grade" puzzled me; if it is a technical term, a blue link or parenthetic explanation would be welcome.
- One thing I found kept striking me throughout, becoming distractingly repetitive, was the continual use of the false title "archeologist Name Surname": in one paragraph we meet archeologist Robert Powers, archeologist David R. Wilcox, and archeologist Frances Joan Mathien. I quite see that you need to put these experts in context at first mention, but could some variety be introduced here and there by, e.g. writing "in a 2003 study of artifacts from Pueblo Bonito, Frances Joan Mathien writes…", or "in a 2015 symposium Stephen Plog comments…"?
That's all from me. I learned a lot from this article, and enjoyed reviewing it. Please ping me when you go to FAC. – Tim riley talk 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch, Tim riley! I've addressed this last batch as best I could (), and I'll continue to work on the last suggestion, as I agree that this can get repetitive. RO(talk) 18:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
In the intro, you've missed a metric conversion for the 1540 ft circumference. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
"exposure to the Sun" - better as "exposure to the sun". Simon Burchell (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that in this construction "Sun" is a proper noun that should be capped (see Sun). RO(talk) 16:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think sun is ever a proper noun. And it definitely isn't in this construction.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please see MOS:CELESTIALBODIES at MOS:CAPS - outside of astronomy articles, no capital for sun. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- But our article on the topic is an FA, and it uses "Sun" throughout. RO(talk) 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Which article? Sun? It's an astronomy article, so uses caps as per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- The CMOS suggests lower case expect in publications in the field of astronomy or science, where it is considered a proper noun, as the name of our star is "the Sun". RO(talk) 17:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is exactly what Simon is saying and why the sun should not be capitalized here. You are not referring to the star but to sunlight on earth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I was agreeing here, Maunus. This is not scientific article, so I agree that lower case is better. RO(talk) 17:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the map in the infobox is particularly helpful to anyone not already familiar with New Mexico - with no labels, and no national map for comparison. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed and removed (). RO(talk) 17:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done. RO(talk) 17:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
...developed within the local Archaic population - it would be good to have an approximate date range in brackets for the Archaic period. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done. RO(talk) 17:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- When I put in period spans like this (particularly prehistoric period spans), I would normally put: (c. 6,000 to 800 BCE), since the dating isn't precise. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good idea. Done. RO(talk) 18:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Location and alignment
"The Continental divide" - this should be "The continental divide". Simon Burchell (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Reading between the lines, I understand that the ruins are in the bottom of the canyon - it would be best to state this explicitly. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Added some clarification. RO(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Led by the governor of Jemez Pueblo, Francisco Horta, Simpson and the brothers Richard and Edward Kern, an artist and cartographer, respectively, explored the canyon." - this sentence does not read very well and could do with rephrasing, perhaps along the lines of A group led by the governor of Jemez Pueblo explored the canyon; its members included Francisco Horta, Simpson, and the brothers Richard and Edward Kern, who were respectively an artist and a cartographer. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- How about this variation that makes it clear Horta was the governor of Jemez Pueblo ()? RO(talk) 18:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's much better. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Chetro Ketl's position is symmetrical to Pueblo Bonito - in relation to what? Simon Burchell (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Does this edit make it more clear ()? RO(talk) 17:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, much better. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure in this one, it might just be down to differences in national varieties of English, but from a British perspective, "and a comparative masonry analysis to assemble a constructional history of Chetro Ketl" - constructional history looks weird, and I would have used "construction history". Simon Burchell (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, that's better. Fixed. RO(talk) 17:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Background and discovery
- Vizcarra's account is the first historical record of the Chacoan great houses that were, "of such antiquity - there is an out-of-place comma directly before the quote. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Removed. RO(talk) 18:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Judge describes it as...", "Fagan states that...", "He cites a study that...", "Windes believes that...", "Archeologists John R. Stein, Dabney Ford, and Richard Friedman believe that..." - all redundant. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- All of these except the Windes one, which I've removed, are introducing quotes, and the speaker of a quote needs to be mentioned in-line whenever it's not clear. Is that correct? RO(talk) 21:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- There's an awful lot of statements sprinkled throught the article along the lines of "Fagan described" or "according to..." I think that such constructions are unnecessary, since the information should be cited to the author anyway. For example According to archeologists Dean and Warren, dendrochronology indicates that "no trees were cut for use [at Chetro Ketl] after 1117" looses nothing by being rewritten as Dendrochronology indicates that no trees were cut for use at Chetro Ketl after 1117. as long as the information is properly cited, and doesn't follow the wording of the original too closely. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I'll work on it. RO(talk) 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Simon Burchell, if you point out some more specific examples I'll do my best to paraphrase them. Do you think there's now enough detail about the Puebloans and their culture? RO(talk) 19:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- There are far too many to list - just following the previous example, and within the same section, there is "Hawley describes", "Fagan described", "In archeologist Edgar L. Hewett's opinion", "Archeologist Mary Metcalf estimates" - all this in the space of 3 paragraphs. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Or rather there were - I've just refreshed the page, and it looks like the text changed somewhat from the version I was last reading, but even so there is "In her opinion" etc. All of these expressions are, with very rare exceptions, redundant. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I removed two of those, but I thought the speaker of a quote needs to attributed in-line. Is that incorrect? RO(talk) 21:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Simon Burchell, I've made some substantial changes since you last looked. Care to take another? RO(talk) 20:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm concentrating on the Maya civilization FAC at the moment, but will try to find time to come back. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
|Collapse completed review
- "sacred zone" is in quotes in the lead but not in the text. The quotes do not seem necessary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Removed. RO(talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- A map of the site itself would be really useful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- There are already maps in Description and Construction. RO(talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Hawley maps are not very legible or clear, I realize it may not be feasible or eays, but getting some good graphics of the site outline relative to local topology would be a really useful addition. Maybe the people at the graphics lab can help.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- There are more detailed and higher quality maps in the external links. RO(talk) 18:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've added a link to an interactive map as an external media (). RO(talk) 19:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I also added a link to the interactive map of Chaco Canyon that includes topography (). Does this satisfy the need for detailed maps? RO(talk) 20:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I couldnt find Chetro Ketl on that interactive map. What I am thinking of is more a map of the outline of the site relative to the canyons topography. Also remember that comments are suggestions, not requirements. Go back and look at the article to see if you agree with me that the map would improve it. Then consider whether the time spent on making a map or having someone make it would be well spent. Then make a decisions. You dont need me or others to approve everything you do.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- It takes two clicks. 1. Click on Chaco Canyon, 2. "Downtown Chaco", and Chetro Ketl is one of those sites that correspond to the Chaco Park map also included in the Location section. Or I could just link right to here (). Since I don't know how to make one of these nor do I know anyone who would likely do it for me this is an easy one to answer, but even if I was a cartographer I seriously doubt I could produce a more helpful or informative version than the Chaco Research Archive. I'll go with the external media links since my time is much better spent editing than learning to make topographic maps, which I've never done. I was only asking to see if you were willing to agree to an alternate method for providing this information. RO(talk) 20:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to be unfamiliar with the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. They are good at producing useful maps, based on other online maps. While perhaps not better than official maps they have the additional virtue of being public domain.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- No. I don't know how that works, but what could they produce that would be superior to the Google satellite images and the NPS map File:NPS map of Chaco Culture National Historic Park.png? I guess I'm not comprehending what's missing. RO(talk) 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Imagine something like , but with the site outline set on a topographic map showing its relative position to the canyon, and with labels for the different structures. This is also nice:  ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good, but it also sounds like lots of work. It would simple take too much time for me to learn the needed skills to do that, and I'm all out of favors. Who would be willing to make this? RO(talk) 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't click on the link to the graphics lab? You make a section there describing what you need, with some links to the images you would like it to look like, and then one of the nice graphics people make it for you when they have time.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take a look when I get the chance. RO(talk) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- But have you seen this ()? RO(talk) 01:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've made requests at the Graphics Lab, but it looks like they are pretty backed up. RO(talk) 20:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am not crazy about the organization which has discovery and description before the history of construction.
- How would you order them? RO(talk) 17:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- See below, I think a chronological order would be better: i.e. "Ancestral Puebloans/Background">"Construction">"Abandonment">"Discovery", and then the description of the site as it is now, and the ongoing deterioration etc.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- But then the deterioration would be out of chronology with the excavation, which led to much of the deterioration. How does the order look now? RO(talk) 18:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- That makes sense regarding deterioration. The current structure looks better to me. I understand that it is complicated to disentangle the past from its interpretation by current archaeologists, and that how to do it exactly requires some thought and deliberation. The agriculture and roads sections are kind of orphaned. They might want to be integrated into the construction section. Or theymight want to be integrated into the "description" section. The etymology section is also out of place in the description section, generally etymology sections go in the general background information in the beginning - maye it is better yet interated into the rediscovery section, where it can be discussed together with the question of who actually was the first to name it Chetro Ketl.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- How does this look ()? Would you move anything else? RO(talk) 19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- It makes more sense. As your write you will probably want to read for coherence, and see if certain things presuppose that other things are already mentioned - that may motivate further exchange of material between sections to get the best flow of information.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the continuity has undoubtedly been disturbed, but I wouldn't spend any time yet fixing that until the order has been agreed upon, so do you think this order makes the most sense, or can you foresee future suggestions to further reorder? RO(talk) 19:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe the excavation section is now cut off from the rediscovery section, and since most of the excavations took place in the first half of the 20th century, maybe it would be more chronological to have them before the description section. I think having the deterioration section apart is justifiable as this is a still ongoing process.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with having excavation before description; that's where I originally had it. RO(talk) 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would like more background about the Ancestral Puebloan culture and history, its place among other great kivas, how great kivas are thought to have been used, (what is a sacred zone?), was it inhabited, was it used for rituals? I would suggest adding a background section before the discovery section to provide this kind of historical cultural context. I would integrate the abandonment section into that. Possibly also the construction section could moved up ahead of the discovery section, to get a more chronological structure.
- This article is not about the culture, for that we have Ancestral Puebloans, Kiva, and at Chaco Culture National Historical Park, an FA, we have lots of detail about the culture. This article is about the structure, not the culture. There are more than a dozen of these articles, and we need not repeat cultural points in 15 different places. RO(talk) 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- The structure is meaningless without information about the culture that produced it and who lived in it and used it. And yes every article needs to provide the information necessary to understand the topic. In summary style, but it needs to be there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- If this goes to FA, it will almost certainly require a brief summary of the culture. I have seen various archaeological site articles get culture paragaraphs in order to make it through, and they are better articles for it. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I'll write a section that summarizes the culture. RO(talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would encourage looking at FAs like Quiriguá, Takalik_Abaj to see how cultural information can be integrated into articles about archeological sites.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I'll do that. Thanks for the tip! RO(talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- The one on Angkor Wat is of an older date and not of the same standard as the two Maya articles I mentioned, but it may also be worth looking at. I was surprised at how few FAs for archeological sites we have. This will be the first in North America!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maunus and Simon Burchell, I've added a background section. What do you think? RO(talk) 20:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Construction: This section could be expanded. Information about the sources of the timber (which apparently was transported some 75 kms to the site), and about the chronology of construction (archeological phases) would be useful. Some possible sources:·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'll add some more about the tree harvesting, The Architecture and Dendrochronology of Chetro Ketl has all of that, but as for construction chronology, did you read the last two paragraphs in the section ()? RO(talk) 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes you give the names and ranges of periods, but do not describe which structures were built there. Lekson et al 2007 for example describes the changes to the Great Kiva over the different periods.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Hawley sketches provide a visual representation of what was constructed during each phase. Yes. I could go into more detail about the construction, but summary style demands that some details are omitted for succinctness (if that's really a word). RO(talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I added some more details about the tree felling (). Thanks for the Betancourt et all cite, which I've utilized. RO(talk) 23:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- While the term Ancestral Puebloan is clearly preferable in general, I think many readers would benefit from at least mentioning the word Anasazi at some point, even if just in a parenthesis.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'll work it into the not yet written background section. RO(talk) 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- The possible Mesoamerican connection is intriguing. Lekson et al 2007, talk at some length about similarities with Tula, Hidalgo, especially in terms of the colonnade. Their conclusion, that it is a likely imitation of Tula style is inclusion worthy I think.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's already mentioned in Description: Colonnade. RO(talk) 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually it is not. It mentions Toltec and a suggestion that the colonnade has something to do with Quetzalcoatl. But it does not mention Tula - which is what ties the elements colonnade/Mesoamerica/Toltec/Quetzalcoatl together.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just meant that the Mesoamerican connection is mentioned, but if you are specifically talking about a direct connection with Tula, I would say that Lekson, Windes, and Fournier, say in "The Changing Faces of Chetro Ketl" from The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, "we conclude that the Chetro Ketl colonnade is a local architectural interpretation of Mexican models". They think Mesoamerican influenced northern Mexico, and Northern Mexico influenced Chaco Canyon, which I have included as a quote. I can add more background detail about the theory, but the academic consensus is currently represented. RO(talk) 21:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is what I have there now:
In Lekson, Windes, and Fournier's opinion, the Mesoamerica-Chaco connection "may have been the result of an interaction mechanism of indirect contact between nuclear Mesoamerica and Chaco though northwestern Mexico", but "the development and dispersion of traits such as the colonnaded halls cannot be attributed to the Toltecs."
- I see no need to go into detail about Tula when the academic consensus is that "the colonnaded halls cannot be attributed to the Toltecs". RO(talk) 21:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- The only reason the question of "Toltecs" even comes up is because Tula, Hidalgo is the only other site with a similar colonnade. Not mentioning it but talking about Colonnades and Toltecs and Quetzalcoatl is very weird - and not very helpful to the reader. I've taken the liberty to add a sentence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Tula, Hidalgo is the only other site with a similar colonnade. I'm not sure that's accurate. According to Lekson et al, "Colonnaded halls ... predate Tula. Pilasters have been identified in residential compounds and palaces like ... Teotihuacán [and] Plazuelas".(2007, page 168) RO(talk) 21:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Then please explain why they spend three pages talking about Tula Hidalgo in a short paper on Chetro Ketl?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- But have you read those pages or are you going by a Google snippet view? Because Lekson et al are basically debunking the idea that there was a direct connection between Chaco and Tula. Tula influenced Northern Mexico, then Northern Mexico influenced Chaco, and that's what I included. I know you mean well, but the problem with tacking on a topic sentence like this one: (), is that it's not supported by the following citation. RO(talk) 21:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have access to the entire Lekson et al. 2007, yes. I have not looked at the Ferdon citation, but it is unimaginable that he is not mentioning Tula when he makes the arguments that he does. The only premise under which it makes sense to posit Toltec influence in Chaco Canyon is because of observed similarities with Tula. Yes, they end up refuting the argument but that does not mean that the argument has not been made. The section right now does not make sense at all, unless the reader surmises that those arguments about Toltecs were made because of the similarity with Tula's colonnade. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's not cited to Ferdon, it's cited to Vivian and Hilpert. RO(talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- The claim is from Ferdon's 1955 paper on architectural similrities between Mexico and the US Southwest.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- How's this look ()? RO(talk) 21:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- It looks backwards. Why would Ferdon suggest a Quetzalcoatl cult and Pochtecas out of the blue? Based on what observation? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try to find a source that explicitly says Ferdon was connecting Tula and Chaco, but as I said, there are also colonnades at Teotihuacán and Plazuelas, and colonnades in the region predate Tula. RO(talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- But neither of those places had any "Toltecs". I can't access Ferdon's 1955 paper, which should probably be cited directly instead of just second hand.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Lekson et al (page 166) seem to suggest that Ferdon's theory was vague, but later archeologists specifically mentioned Tula. Vivian and Hilpert are experts, and there is nothing wrong with using secondary sources like theirs to represent Ferdon's position. RO(talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Absent a citation that says Ferdon specifically referred to Tula, how does this look (be nice) (). RO(talk) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Toltec = Inhabitant of Tula. > "Detect a Toltec influence" = "Detect similarity with Tula".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you certain?
- "Toltecs, Tula Tollan or Toltecs can refer to one of two things: either the residents of the highland Mexican, Postclassic city of Tula and Tollan the home of Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl; or the residents of any number of urban centers that lived and died before the conquest. Residents of Teotihuacán, for example, were sometimes considered Toltecs."(Mesoamerican Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs of Mexico and Central America. page 312. Oxford University Press, 2002)
Yes. Tula was the capital city of the kingdom, but to say that only residents of Tula were Toltecs is not accurate. RO(talk) 15:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
In Lekson, The Architecture and Dendrochronology of Chetro Ketl, he includes this note under Ferdon's entry in the bibliography: "Comparison of the Colonnade (Rooms 32, 76, 81, 105) and other architectural details at Chetro Ketl to forms in Central Mexico and the Yucatan." (page 337) Which would seem to indicate that Ferdon based his theory on much more than just Tula, including elements from the Yucatan. I agree that Ferdon must have mentioned Tula in his paper, but Lekson does not mention Tula in the above cited work, which is arguably the most comprehensive study of the architecture of Chetro Ketl ever published. Also, this paper, "Ancient Cultural Interplay of the American Southwest in the Mexican Northwest", mentions the Toltecs without mentioning Tula (). RO(talk) 16:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Toltec equals Inhabitant of Tula
- Not true. Colhuacan, Tulancingo, and Huapalcalco where also significant Toltec cities. RO(talk) 21:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- No they were not. If you are going to try to school me in Mesoamerican archeology I am not going to waste more time here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Simon Burchell, will you please comment here? Does Toltec refer only to people who lived in Tula? Wasn't the first Toltec city Colhuacan? RO(talk) 20:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maunus, I don't understand what this point of contention has to do with the article. The section mentions Tula and states: "the colonnaded halls cannot be attributed to the Toltecs" (). What more do you want it to say? RO(talk) 21:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment Doesn't Etymology usually go at the top of an article? It does is in settlement articles I've promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think it was moved for chronology sake, since Chetro Ketl probably didn't exist as a name until 1849. RO(talk) 21:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to do this in pieces, since it is fairly long and densely written. Seems generally good.
- "dramatic crop failures". I wonder if the word "dramatic" is worth dispensing with.
- Although the photograph probably makes it clear, it should IMO be stated in the first paragraph what the house was made of.
- "irrigated farms fields" Farms doesn't work as an adjective in AmEng. Maybe either take off the s or make it "irrigated fields for farming". I'd go with Column B. For similar reasons I think I'd make "fresh-water" into "freshwater". Ditto "In the cliffs" to "On the cliffs"
- If they call it "downtown Chaco" then shouldn't downtown be capped?
- Since the fourth paragraph of the lede would normally, I think, be split into two paragraphs except you can't because that would make it 5, I wonder if the lede is trying to do too much.
- "early 19th century" 1849, I suppose, is marginally more early than it is late, still ...
- Can kiva be linked for us peons? Variety of coffee, I thought.
- I wonder at the structure of the article, it seems very linear. Can the sections about the history be grouped under the heading "history"?
- "At least two groups of transitional Basketmaker II peoples inhabited the San Juan Basin" should it be people rather than peoples?
- "During the years 1 to 400" This sounds exact, possibly because of the use of the year 1. Possibly it should be made a little more vague: "During the first four centuries CE"?
- "enabled the boiling" Perhaps "permitted the boiling". Would a "for the first time" be justified?
- "at least two such communities had been established in Chaco Canyon; the largest and most consequential is known as the La Plata. One of the earliest La Plata settlements," this is mildly confusing. I think of a "community" as a village or neighborhood, perhaps, but this seems to imply a culture with several areas. (also, the use of the "the" before La Plata in one usage and not in the other looks odd, though I am sure it is correct.
- "when the canyon was home to a few hundred people" this actually sheds no light on the earlier part of the sentence, so I don't know why it is included as a part thereof. Can the dominant theory as to why the village came not to be occupied be stated?
- " the very first pueblos" you should probably link here to pueblo. A bit about what this shift meant in terms of the kind of structures built might be good.
- "emigrants from". Not my strong suit, but I think this should be "immigrants from"--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look at this, Wehwalt! I've attempted to address most of your above suggestions with this series of edits: (). As for the others, Lekson coined the term "downtown Chaco", and he doesn't cap it, so neither did I. Taking a quick look at others that use the term I see that they too leave it lower-cased. I couldn't see a good spot to insert sandstone in the first paragraph, so I added it to the mention of how many blocks were used.
- RE: I wonder at the structure of the article, it seems very linear. Can the sections about the history be grouped under the heading "history"? Which sections would you make level three? I assume you mean Construction through Excavation?
- RE: "when the canyon was home to a few hundred people" this actually sheds no light on the earlier part of the sentence, so I don't know why it is included as a part thereof. Can the dominant theory as to why the village came not to be occupied be stated? I'm not aware of any prevailing theory on why Shabik'eshchee Village was abandoned, but it's likely that the residents moved to a pueblo in the canyon. I mention the population here not as a reflection on Shabik'eshchee, but to give the reader a sense of how many people lived in the canyon before the great house building began. RO(talk) 16:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Some more.
- Picking up
- A sentence on how the canyon came to be, geologically speaking, would not be amiss.
- Is the external image in accord with policy? Not saying it isn't, just the first time I've seen one.
- Unless I'm missing something, you never actually say what the building's made of nor how, in general terms, it was constructed. There's much discussion of trees. Were logs used, or smaller bits of lumber? If the logs were used, how were they transported over rather difficult country? I see discussions of masonry and the images suggest that stone was used, but what do I know? If stone was used, was it local or was more suitable stone brought in from elsewhere if the local rocks wouldn't do? Roofs? (I see at the end of the section, "sandstone blocks" is thrown in, but a bit late to the party)
- "regular annual intervals" this seems unclear to me.
- "The population of the great house might have been large enough that laborers gathered structural wood during the agricultural season, or this might indicate that groups of Chacoans were dedicated to tree felling irrespective of the farming season, when most others were busy with field preparation and planting." If I'm reading this right, both alternatives seem to amount to the same thing: there were enough Chacoans that even during the farming season, they had labor they could devote to tree-felling.
- "Dendrochronology" Not linked on first use. You do link on second use.
- Why did people settle in the outlying communities? Should be explained, I think.
- "A haphazardly applied layer of rubble veneer to ceremonial areas in Chetro Ketl's great kiva" Rubble veneer appears to be a technique to construct walls. I gather what happened is they constructed them to shield wall decorations from the elements, but the article sounds like horizontal areas were covered with it.
- "The proper archeological investigation" possibly scientific for proper.
- "after an invitation to survey the canyon" from?
- Why is trash mound piped and the earlier refuse mound not?
- "prove elusive" perhaps "remain elusive". The situation could change.
- " twelve round rooms, or kivas" Possibly the description would do more good on first use.
- "The "long, narrow, curving, hall-like room", which runs along the outside wall" Why is the quotation necessary? Why can't it be paraphrased? Lots of twisty little passages, or so I gather.
- Great Kiva
- "Thirty-nine crypts" Were these used for the housing of remains? They do not seen large enough. Link or explain, I would.
- Given the build up, I'm surprised no image, sketch, whatnot.
- I've looked, but I haven't found anything yet. It might have something to do with the fact that it was later filled in with masonry to make more rooms, so it's less than impressive in its current state. I'll be there again this summer, so if I haven't found a good PD image I'll take a few myself. RO(talk) 22:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- "stone ware" I think "stoneware" is more usual
- "These pilgrims probably assisted in the construction of Chetro Ketl, while "confirming their affiliation with the larger ritual alliance"." I would change "while" to "thus"
- "Because the Chacoans relied on rainfall to enable their agricultural pursuits in a particularly arid environment, the focus of their ceremonialism was likely "appeals for moisture"" This seems too long winded. I would get to the point with something like "As water was crucial to the success of the Chacoans' farming and their survival, in their rituals, they most likely prayed for rain".
- Chacoan system
- I would split the second sentence of the first paragraph at the semicolon.
- Generally seems pretty good. I'd review whether information on a subject is presented in a cohesive fashion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wehwalt, thanks for this review! I believe I've fixed all the problems you mentioned (), except maybe for a picture of the colonnade, which I'm still looking for. If you are willing to take another look to confirm or deny I'd really appreciate it! RO(talk) 19:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
crystalize: looking in Merriam-Webster it seems that "crystallize" is the normal American spelling. For "crystallise" they say "British variant of crystallize". It looks as if this one needs the double ell (and zed).
- I've just noticed that is in a quote so if it is like that in the quote I guess we should keep it. --Mirokado (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The population of the great house might have been large enough that laborers gathered structural wood during the agricultural season, or this might indicate that groups of Chacoans were dedicated to tree felling irrespective of the farming season, when most others were busy with field preparation and planting. Wehwalt has also mentioned this. There seems no distinction between the alternatives, although it did make more sense once I had read page 239 of ref 28, where it is clear that the distinction is between enough in-house labour even at busy times and the existence of specialized groups elsewhere in the area. Perhaps rephrase this to make it clearer and change the ref to just page 239.
Is "Rediscovery" not better? Again looking in Merriam-Webster the entry is a collection of words including the "re-" prefix, but all of them are listed without the hyphen. MOS:HYPHEN says "There is a clear trend to join both elements ... particularly in American English."
who is R. Gwinn Vivian?
I didn't understand the reference to "dry hole" in the quote ending "... the notion that Chetro Ketl was a 'dry hole'": the preceding "although" leads the reader to expect the following phrase to have the opposite meaning. This was also clearer once I had read the reference. I think it is necessary to rephrase the paragraph from "Lekson notes that..." on, perhaps without the quotes, clarifying the reference to the later discovery of wooden figures and archaeologists' general disappointment.
How high was the internal space when the roof was present (one, two, ... stories)? Was the roof a single span or were there supporting posts?
- Still trying to visualise the kiva's height (actually both the internal height of the enclosed space and how high the roof was from the surrounding ground level). --Mirokado (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to find it yet, but I'll dig it up. RO(talk) 21:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I found some ceiling height estimates for several other great kivas, but it looks like the exact figure for Chetro Ketl is unknown, but this edit () should address your point, which was a good one! Thanks! RO(talk) 20:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. My imagination was in this case incorrect so the addition will help the reader. --Mirokado (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Agriculture and pottery
I particularly like this section and its accompanying illustrations. Would it be possible to do something similar for the various types of stonework so the reader can see a picture of each next to the description?
- Excellent new section on Masonry. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the excellent suggestion! RO(talk) 21:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
This is about an evocative period of American prehistory and is a worthy subject for a featured article. --Mirokado (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look and offering some great suggestions, Mirokado! RO(talk) 21:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Chaco scholars estimate that it required more than 500,000 person-hours" - I would rename this to "man-hours" personally as it's the most generally used term
- Person-hours is gender neutral, which I like, but it's also the term used by the cited source. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- It seems somewhat odd for the Background section to open up with "In 1973" and the rest of the section opens with entries from 200 BCE!
- Fixed. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would consider adding a few more links around the article as some sections are looking dry of links — there are some things that a layman wouldn't be able to understand
- I'll take a look for potential links. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- "The harder, tabular stone was easier to shape, so the Chacoan's preferred it" - might sound better as Chacoan's preferred the harder, tabular stone as it was easier to shape
- I like that, so I've adopted your language. Thanks! RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Good veneer minimized the amount of exposed mortar, which reduced maintenance while maximizing stone contact, which increased the strength of the wall and reduced the possibility of structural failure" - how about Good veneer minimized the amount of exposed mortar, which reduced maintenance while maximizing stone contact and increasing the strength of the wall. It also reduced the possibility of structural failure.
- Another fine suggestion. Done. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- "with third story additions to central kiva G in masonry style V" - should Style be capitalised (as it was before)?
- I don't think so, as it's not capped in the source. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- "The trash mound was" - is there a reason why it's called trash mound? Sounds informal
- That's a fair point, so I've changed "trash" to "refuse". RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- The article doesn't use any online sources per se; those examples are to printed material that is available online via PDF. I might be wrong, but I don't think access dates are required for printed material. RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid that's all I could find due to me coming to the review late, but other than that it looks like an excellent article! JAGUAR 18:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the peer review, Jaguar! RO(talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 27 April 2015, 21:45 UTC)----
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made it a GA and I was wondering if there were any improvements I should make before taking it to FA?
Thanks, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Reply from Smurrayinchester
Interesting article! I did a bit of copy-editing - I think it could use a bit more work just to improve the flow of some sentences (for instance, there are some sentences where a couple of commas might help, and few "however"s that should be "but"s).
More specific comments:
- It would be good to have a more detailed citation for the point about women's football - the current citation is just a throwaway sentence in a BBC article, doesn't mention NIWFA.
- " It is not known when the official ban on Sunday football was instituted but it is known that it was created in the 1930s." I don't understand this sentence - what's the difference between "create" and "institute" here?
- " IFA Article 36.b which stated that no football would be scheduled on Sunday but matches on Sunday could be played if both teams and the organizing competition agreed" Again, it might be nice to have a better explanation of what this means - when can a match be played on a Sunday. (Also, if 36.b is still in effect, then it's "states" instead of "stated").
I hope these comments help! Smurrayinchester 10:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 23 May 2015, 09:03 UTC)----
Engineering and technology
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been expanded from 8k to 43k (Start-class to nearly B-class) and some uninvolved opinions would be useful.
Thanks, Esquivalience t 02:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 1 June 2015, 02:29 UTC)----
This article is currently a C-Class. I would like to have others look at it to see how to improve it to a B-Class and eventually a GA-Class. Any constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Pink Fae (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
B-class is not far away. Here are some suggestions:
- Expand lead per MOS:LEAD
- An "Early life" section before (or combined with) the "High school" section would be good to provide overview of her childhood. It is especially relevant here as it would provide context to her relationship with her sister.
- Quote by her brother might be better paraphrased in lieu of quoting directly with the WP:INTEXT attribution, as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (I'm guessing) is unlikely to apply here.
- Mentioning exact dates IMO usually make the flow of text choppy. Are all of them needed?
- Some parts read more like a list of sequential events; need to improve flow into contiguous paragraphs.
- MOS:ACRO: e.g. CAA, etc.
- Slight case of WP:UNDERLINK
- On higher resolution displays, her portrait in the "College" section is sandwiching the text with the infobox, which is discouraged by MOS:IMAGELOCATION.
—Bagumba (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 29 May 2015, 20:39 UTC)----
A recently promoted GA which I'd like to make an FA. I've no clue as to how to proceed further since we don't have a model FA in WP:CRIC. We do have FAs on Test matches (Ashes) but the degree of comprehensiveness is subject to vary much for a One-day game. Suggestions pertaining to improvement of prose are most welcome. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (ping) 14:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 May 2015, 14:08 UTC)----
I've listed this article for peer review because I've added significant amount of content and would like a view on what I've done and what improvements/ changes would be appropriate.
Thanks, ShugSty (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
First, I thank you for your initiative to review the work for the 1967 Intercontinental Cup... The work is important because it describes very well the problems faced by the first editions for this important competition... It gives a very good overview about the situation in which such competitions were held and played and detailed and most important information about what exactly happened. However, I think that this is not sufficient... More information should be efficiently provided...
- Circumstances: Minor information are provided about how teams had travelled to play the games, where they had lived during the games, how they afforded the expenses of the travels, how they did the physical preparations to play the games... These details are important to see the situation provided to the two teams to play this match. You can use citations from players who assisted to this important match and get some information about this from the references that are cited in this work...
- Supporters: You can write about sponsors who afforded some money for the two teams to play this important competititon and for the organization of the two games... You can also talk about the reason of the choice of Uruguay for playing the third game... These details are important and can be useful to see the situation of football in that particular period... You can also talk about the supporters and how they had travelled to see the games and how they react after the three games... You can talk about the name of the supporters and their wears and clothes and how these clothes were made and brought... You can talk about supporting songs of the two teams and if they had worsened the situation... So, you have the choice on how to proliferate your work...
- Objects: You can write about the wear of the two teams and if they were made particularly from the Intercontinental Cup... You can talk about how they were made... You can even talk about the balls of this important competition. You can describe it and even give some further information about how they were designed and the comments of the interested audience about them... This details could be extremely important although there are not the main ones for this important work...
- Amelioration: You can ameliorate the work by developing the part about the rules of the 1967 Intercontinental Cup by involving more detailed information about the rules for the choice of the place of the third game, the choice of referees for games... You can talk also about the fees of the tickets to see the games, the fees provided to referees... The part about the final third game has to be proliferated and developed by including the reactions of the players during the third game and what they have done in the last minutes of the match and after the match... "After the game, the Scottish dressing room was invaded by Argentinian fans and a battle between Argentinian and Uruguayan (who supported Celtic) fans broke out outside the stadium" should be more developed and the part talking about what exactly happened after the competitions should be proliferated by involving more details about talking more about what happened to players after these circumstances. These details are important and I think that developing them will help you ameliorate the structure of your paper and the coverage of the paper to all the important detailed information of the competition.
--Csisc (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 16 May 2015, 14:23 UTC)----
Geography and places
After a major rewrite (removing a large amount of copied text) this article is unclassified; I'd like it reviewed with a view to pushing it to WP:GA in the future. Cheers, matt (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 1 June 2015, 08:51 UTC)----
I've listed this article for peer review as it has been overhauled from a stub and i am looking to take it through a GA review in the near future. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting ... sporadic, in this case. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks very much Dank, much appreciated as always.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 1 June 2015, 03:55 UTC)----
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it up to FAC soon. Looking forward to some constructive criticism on the article based on a statue built around 49 BC. Thanks, - Vivvt (Talk) 00:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 25 May 2015, 00:49 UTC)----
I've listed this article for peer review because its comprehensiveness and neutrality should be chequed before its FA nomination.
Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- In the lead, "He occupied most parts of Croatia…" is awkward. Was it most of, some of, part of? Unless there are distinct, seperate parts of Croatia which I'm not aware of (I'm only aware of a couple of countries that have such) Gecko G (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Gecko G, thank your for your comment. I modified the text. Borsoka (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- But we can't know the exact extent of territory that he gained control of. If he gained the lands south of Drava and north of Gvozd, then it was just northern Croatia (According to Thomas the Archdeacon's chronicle, Ladislaus "occupied the entire land from the River Drava to the mountains called the Iron Alps without encountering opposition".). Unlike today, in the 11th century the centre of Croatia was south around Knin, Biograd, Nin, Šibenik, Solin... not in Zagreb. He intervened in the succession crisis upon the request of his sister with support of a number of Croatian nobles, and after her death he was technically a legal heir to the throne. I would propose something like this: He intervened in the succession crisis in Croatia and gained control over northern parts of it. Tzowu (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Tzowu: First, I take it your comment was directed at the previous section about his occupation of Croatia, and not his father's recieving of the Ducatus, so I hope it's ok that I'm moving it thusly.
- Second, I turned to my collection of historical atlas to try to see if they could shed any light on what parts he occupied. I hadn't expected to find much since it was such a narrow window where the borders were in flux. I was surprised at the number of references I did find, but also very surprised to find that my various historical atlas's unfortunately disagree with one another. And I didn't find anything useful in other references I had on hand. Looking around the 'net, apparently at the time Croatia did have two "parts" both called Croatia: Pannonian Croatia vs. Dalmatian Croatia, aka the Duchy of Croatia. Croatia proper is a much later term, a little over half of which is in Pannonian croatia, the remainder of which, along with northern Dalmatia made up the Duchy of Croatia. I wonder if that is the cause of the confusion in sources? It seems he conquered Pannonian Croatia (& Slavonia) for sure, but it's unclear how-much, if any, of Dalmatian Croatia he got.
- Thirdly, about the center (or heartland) of Croatia at the time being in what is today considered northern Dalmatia, very good point - I found a source confirming such: "A strong state organisation was created in the basin of the Dalmatian rivers Cetina, Krka and Zrmanja, in the hinterland of the Byzantine cities of Split, Trogir and Zadar." At least that's as of the late 9th/early 10th century, I presume it was still so in the late 11th (though apparently by this time Biograd & Nin were Venetian holdings, in the case of Biograd at least since earlier in the century), so you are right that that is important to keep in mind.
- Fine (1991) [which I cited twice just above] would likely make a good source for just how much of Croatia he occupied, unfortunately the page in question, page 284, is not available on Google Books.
- Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it was intented for that comment.
- We can take 10 historical maps of Southeastern Europe during the Middle Ages and end up with 10 different versions of borders. Contemporary sources are very, very scarce about this time period, the contradictions you found are not unusual. What he definitely conquered was Pannonia. However, Croatian kings didn't really have a stable rule there even before and it was often regarded as terra nullus. It was mostly a swampy area. "Pannonian Croatia" and "Dalmatian Croatia" are names used by (some) historians for two earlier centuries' states, Duchy of Pannonia and Duchy of Croatia, or as names for 2 regions of Croatia in the 11th or 12th century.
- I have the whole book and I can quote page 248. According to Fine, he "occupied much of Croatia, including part of Dalmatia", then after the attack of Cumans on Hungary he "pulled out of Dalmatia, but kept inland (Pannonian) Croatia." That territory was given to Almos who ruled there until 1095.
- "The Hungarian king quickly intervened to protect his sister's interests (a fine excuse for what were probably his own ambitions) and occupied much of Croatia, including part of Dalmatia. However, some wild people (Pechenegs, according to Sisic, but more probably Cumans as argued by N. Klaic) then attacked Hungary, causing a partial withdrawal of the Hungarians. They pulled out of Dalmatia, but kept inland (Pannonian) Croatia. Between the Drava River and the Gvozd mountain they created a special Croatian banovina ruled by Almos, the nephew of the king. Almos was to hold this territory from 1091 to 1095." Tzowu (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- In the early years seciton, I made it clearer that it was the father who recieved the Duchy, not Ladislaus himself. And changed it to the Ducatus—as from my understanding it was not one of various duchies, like say with British or Swedish royal dukedom's or with French apanages, or what not, but rather a distinct, singular, entity. Gecko G (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Two quick clarifications in the duke section, 2nd paragraph: 1st- was the Battle of Kemej the outbreak of the civil war? If not, when it started should probably be mentioned. 2nd- Where did he command the left flank? (at the battle of Mogyoród specifically or was it routinely his command?) Gecko G (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Gecko G, thank you for your review. Sorry I do not know whether he routinely left the left flank or only at Mogyoród, but this information was only recorded in connection with the Battle of Mogyoród and I modified the article. The civil war started with the invasion of the duchy which ended with the Battle of Kemej. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Battle of Kemej ended the civil war or ended the invasion of the duchy? Gecko G (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, it was a battle during the civil war (and the invasion of the duchy). Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had planned to go over one section a day, but I haven't had the time to maintain that schedule. To help make up for it, I went through 3 sections today. Not sure what the etiquette is, if I should keep this near my other comments just above, or put it at teh bottom after Dank's review to keep it chronological. If the later, then anyone please feel free to move my remarks down.
- In the "His reign, consolidation …" sub-section:
- However, almost contemporaneous sources contradict this report seems you are either missing an "all" OR it should be "most" rather than "almost"
- Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- In the sentence about Rudolf of Rheinfelden, Perhaps consider working in a link to either the Great Saxon Revolt and/or him being an antiking?
- Thank you. Link added. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- In the "expansion" sub-section:
- all looks good.
- In the "Last years" sub-section:
- 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. Is it possible to double check the exact wording in the illuminated chronicle in the quote used there, specifically 2 parts: The usage of an "and" rather than a comma between the first two items of the 4 item list, and also is it clarified what is meant by "Britain", since England is part of the physical island of Great Britain (thus that usage is odd).
- Gecko G (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I modified the second sentence after this sentence in order to emphasize that the whole story was only a later invention. The chronicler who wrote that sentence obviously did not know geography. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "Cuman": quote marks here are ambiguous. Add "a Turkic nomad".
- Dank, thank you for your comments. I would preserve the question marks, because "Ladislaus's fight with the Cuman" is the traditional name of that legend. I delinked the word and added a short text. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- " proclaimed king in 1074; however, Solomon maintained control": proclaimed king in 1074, but Solomon maintained control
- Thank you, modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- "However, Solomon resisted Ladislaus with the assistance of King Henry IV of Germany. Consequently ... However": "However" and "Consequently" are heavier words than you need here; they reduce readability, especially with 3 occurrences in one paragraph.
- Thank you, modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Cumans": Don't link the second occurrence.
- Thank you, I delinked the first occurence (as per above). Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 12 May 2015, 03:43 UTC)----
Natural sciences and mathematics
Language and literature
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article and I want to get an idea for general improvement and best practices so I can then replicate it to other author bios.
Thanks, plange (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 2 June 2015, 01:21 UTC)----
Hello. I've been translating this article from eswiki, and I need a peer review because I wantes nominated it for GA (article was also nominated in the Spanish Wikipedia). Article may be translation problems (I am not a native speaker), but I want to help solve it.
Thanks, Jacobo Vásquez talk 02:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 31 May 2015, 02:44 UTC)----
Philosophy and religion
Social sciences and society
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA status (featured article status is unfortunately probably beyond it - maybe featured list one day?). Suggestions for images would be especially welcome - it would be good to have things that aren't just maps, but I can't find any free images of the council leaders or the 2015 election proceedings.
Thanks, Smurrayinchester 21:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 29 May 2015, 21:42 UTC)----
I've asked for a peer review in advance of an FAC attempt. Thanks -- Mike Cline (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 24 May 2015, 14:10 UTC)----