Template:Did you know nominations/Spanish conquest of Yucatán
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Spanish conquest of Yucatán edit
- ...
that although a battle near Mérida in 1546 established Spanish control in the north of the Yucatán Peninsula during the Spanish conquest, the last independent Maya kingdom in the peninsula did not succumb until 1697? - ALT1: ... that although a battle near Mérida in 1546 established Spanish control in the north of the Yucatán Peninsula during the Spanish conquest, the last Maya kingdom in the south did not fall until 1697?
- Reviewed: Namacpacan Church
- Comment: Spoilt for choice for the hook of this article, so I'm open to alternatives. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Simon Burchell (talk). Self nominated at 08:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC).
Improved to GA status. Good work :) hook checks out, inline citation. If better hooks can be found then a better choice could be added.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the lead is excessively long, not to mention the opening paragraph. A lot of background information could be moved into a Background section. Also, did you check for close paraphrasing? Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've shortened both the hook (which was over 200 chars) and the lead para - note that the article is quite long, this is reflected in the lead (which was expanded as part of the GA process!). I'll give the lead another going over, since it is still longer than the leads of the related Spanish conquest articles (Petén and Guatemala). Simon Burchell (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Simon Burchell: thank you for considering my request. I understand that the article is long, and the lead reflects that, but I would have thought the lead would be more concise. I wonder if the second and third sentences of the first paragraph of the lead could be safely removed, to retain the flow between the first and fourth sentences? Yoninah (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've shrunk the location to a phrase tagged onto the first sentence, and removed some more so it flows more naturally. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's certainly better. Have you considered using Harvard footnotes so the citations click right to the book in question? Yoninah (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes - I've just not got around to it! Simon Burchell (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- This newly promoted good article is new enough and long enough. The ALT1 hook facts are sufficiently sourced. The article seems neutral. Many of the sources are either in Spanish or off-line, but in the ones I could access, I detected no close paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
