Talk:Qʼumarkaj

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Simon Burchell in topic GA Review
Good articleQʼumarkaj has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 25, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 12, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Gumarcaj, in Guatemala, is archaeologically and ethnohistorically the best known of the Late Postclassic highland Maya capitals?

Suggest renaming page

edit

Although I have adopted the spelling of the original article in my recent expansion, I suggest that this page be renamed to Q'umarkaj, in keeping the the correct K'iche' spelling rather than the hispanicised form, and maintaining consistency with the article K'iche' Kingdom of Q'umarkaj, and the spelling being changed throughout this article. The Gumarcaj spelling is hardly used in the literature, being just one of various alternatives. Carmack uses Q'umarkaj throughout. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Simon, top-flight job with the expansion work, kudos! Sure, rename as you suggest makes good sense. Follows ALMG I understand, it would align with related usage here, and, as you say, it's adopted in notable sources. --cjllw ʘ TALK 11:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fine by me. I put the article at "Gumarcaj" because that was the most common spelling back when I lived in Guatemala, but that was 30 years ago. If the more accurate K'iche spelling has gained acceptance, moving the article to that title is appropriate. And kudos on the article improvements from me as well. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, all done. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

For good measure I'll just make it noted that I agree with this move.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Q'umarkaj/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article looks very promising! I will be undertaking the review within the next couple of weeks.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Maunus! Simon Burchell (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Review

edit

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
  • I think the readability would be improved by combining some of the small subsections into larger sections of flowing prose. I would especially suggest combining the section about rulers with the history section to get a better flow.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

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, and contentious material relating to living persons
(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
(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.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(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.
  • Some of these images I imported from flickr, I also used one of my very old (pre-digital) photos from when I visited the site 10+ years ago (I really must get back some day). There must be better photos around somewhere, but these will have to do for now... Simon Burchell (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply