Talk:Oaxaca/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I'll be reviewing this article over the next week or so. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

1.Well-written:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. I'll take care of that.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]