Talk:Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I will be reviewing the article over the next days (possibly up to a week). Upon first glance I will say that the lead needs to be fixed - an embedded list doesn't belong in the lead. Instead I suggest making a "location" section containing the names and coordinates of the missions (the best would be if the list were converted to smoothly flowing prose) and the map that is currently located in a bad place where it breaks up the layout. More suggestions for improvements will follow.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review. I will fix the lead. bamse (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the location and terminology data out of the lead and into their own sections. This means that now there is enough room to make the lead conform to WP:LEAD by making sure it sumamrizes all of the most important information in the history, architecture and, "life in the missions" sections. The lead should probably also mention tourism.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new summarizing lead (by User:Truthkeeper88 and me). Hope that it is ok now. Other than this I only moved the first map to the section "Location" where I feel it fits best. bamse (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes, now it is safe from quickfail. I will now begin to go more into detail with the other sections.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Well written.
- A. good prose. pass
- B. layout and style. near pass. The problems consist mostly in the large tables of missions and churches that break up the flow of the article completely. I think they should be moved to separate List-article and only be linked from the main article. The lists, however are so good that it looks to me as if they might become featured lists with a little bit of work - but they don't belong in the middle of this article. The list of locations should be converted into a prose description of the information currently provided only in list form: see the appropriate use of embedded lists.

Factually Accurate and verifiable.
- A pass
- B pass
- C pass

Broad in coverage
- A. pass I have some issues with content that i believe should be added, but which will not affect the GA status of the article. I'll describe my concerns below.
- B near pass i think there is a few cases in which the article goes into unnecessary detail - for example it lists ten to twenty names of jesuits who founded or moved missions - these jesuits do not have articles themselves and would probably not be sufficiently notable to have one - it doesn't seem that mentioning every jesuit founder and every foudning event is necessary for an article in summary style. I would suggest condensing the history section weeding out information that is too detailed for summary style.

Neutral. in doubt The article is biased - it is quite biased towards an interest in the jesuits and their missionary work rather than in the Chiquitos indians and the effect of the jesuitws on their lifestyle. I am however in doubt about whether this bias is too much for me to pass it. I will list my concerns of how this could be remedied below - but I will be open to discussion on this point.

Stable pass
Images pass with flying colours

Miscellaneous concerns[edit]

In the following I will decribe some concerns I have with the article that are not sufficiently grave to influence its status as GA. However I think that if it is ever to be nominated for FA this should be remedied first.

The article is mostly only interested in the jesuit perspective which it describes in great detail. I would however like to see the indigenous perspective presented as well. How did the chiquitos live before the missionaries arrived? ("a state of bliss" isn't descriptive enough). How did the missions affect the indians - how did they change they cultural patterns? How were they treated by the jesuits? (here is a point of controversy that is missing in the article: often in modern times the jesuit missions have been seen as paternalistic theocracies, converting the indians into minors). Also the indian part is missing in the architecture section - the lead states that the architecture of the missions mix indigenous and european traits, but the architecture section doesn't mention any indigenous traits of the missions' layout.

I also think that the history section lacks a short description of what a "reduction" is which must then be learned through the context of the article. I suggest to insert that in the history section instead of some of the superfluous detail about individual jesuits.

I would recommend moving the "life in the missions" section up to after the history section and have the architecture section last - before the tourism section.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and suggestions. I agree with moving the tables to separate list-articles. Since they are closely related to the main article it would make sense to move them to a subpage like Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos/List of churches and Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos/List of foundings. Do you have any objections to this? I'll also convert the location list into prose and going to remove too detailed information from the history section.

As for the Indian perspective it is not easy (if at all possible) to find reliable sources for the pre-Jesuit time. As an example, I remember reading varying opinion as to whether the Indians were sedentary or not. There is some information in the "Life in the mission towns" section on the Jesuit-Indian relationship. I agree that at least the controversy you mention should be noted in the article. I'll have another look at the sources and see if I can find some more information on the Indian perspective. Agree with the architecture. It should be made clearer which elements are Indian. "adobe" would be one of them, others can be guessed from the pictures.

A short definition of a reduction is in the lead ("town ... with the aim of making the Indians convert to Christianity.") Should this sentence or something like it be repeated at the start of the history section?

Incidentally the original order of the sections was as you suggest: "History-Life in the missions-architecture". I don't feel strongly about the order and changed it to the present form following a suggestion by a copyeditor (User:Truthkeeper88 I think). Both are interchangeable and could easily be swapped.

I will incorporate the suggestions as I wrote above. It will take a while.bamse (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to review[edit]

Hi Maunus! To get an idea of what still needs to be done with the article, I created a short summary of what has been done since the review. I marked the items which I believe have been fixed with "Done!" and those where I am not sure if further action is required with "Possibly done!?".

Well written
- B. layout and style. The tables have been converted to prose by Truthkeeper88. Also the list of locations is now in prose form. Done!

Broad in coverage
- A. Indian elements have been emphasized in the architecture section. Definition of a reduction is now present. Possibly done!?
- B. The history section has been condensed with only a few names of Jesuit founders left. Done!

Neutral. Point of controversy (paternalistic theocracies) has been mentioned in the article. Also some minor additions ("swidden agriculture",...). Possibly done!?

Did I miss anything? I mainly wonder if more on the Indian perspective is necessary. Quoting from the article, the following info is already present (probably incomplete):

before Jesuits:

Traditionally most of the Chiquitos had practised swidden agriculture, growing maize and yuca on a small scale.

time of Jesuits:

the degree to which the Jesuits controlled the indigenous population for which they had responsibility and the degree to which they allowed indigenous culture to function is a matter of debate, and the social organization of the reductions have been variously described as jungle utopias or as theocratic regimes of terror. ... Eventually Gorgotoqui, the language spoken by the Chiquitano, became the lingua franca of the mission settlements, and the numerous tribes were culturally united in the Chiquitano ethnic group ... In the reductions, the Indians were free men. ... After the contact with the Spanish, cocoa and rice were also cultivated. Hunting and fishing provided additional nutrition in the dry season. ... All the inhabitants, including the young and the elderly, were subject to a schedule alternating work, religious practice, and rest. ... the Chiquitania Indians enjoyed considerably more freedom than those in the Jesuit missions in Mojos. ...

present:

Although the majority of the population is Catholic, a broad and rich mythology remains. ... the native Chiquitos Indians presently live in the villages. ... According to various sources, in Bolivia the number of ethnic Chiquitos is between 30,000 and 47,000 people, of which less than 6,000 — mainly elderly people — still speak the original language. ...

Please let me know what still needs to be done with the article. bamse (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very good. But please have a little patience with me in completing the review - I will be away on medical ghrpunds the next couple of days - after that i am sure ti will be passed.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Take your time. bamse (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Verdict[edit]

I am very impressed at the improval to the article and i am happy to pass it as one of wikipedias' very good articles!·Maunus·ƛ· 01:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]