Talk:Quilago/GA1

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

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) 22:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up this review. Thank you Grnrchst, for improving and expanding this article. I'll have initial comments for you in the next 24 hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! Passing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig and spot checks came up clean. Spot checked citations (looking at this and criteria 2b, 2c, and 4) were 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 22, and 25.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   All common aspects of a historical biography are addressed. Overview sources don't appear to mention any broad strokes that aren't covered here.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

1. Is it possible to add any more about the years these events take place, even if approximate? Failing that, can the "fl. 1485–1515" get a citation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The exact years are uncertain, we just know that Huayna Capac's expansions took place between 1493 and 1525. Historians debate the exact period of the rebellion, but as far as I know, it's usually considered to have been between 1510 and 1515. These dates in the lead are approximations more so than exact dates. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Making a note to come back to this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Grnrchst, the best I could come up with is Naranjo Gomezjurado mentioning the conflict with the Inca starting around 1500 and Fine-Dare noting Huayna Capac and Atahualpa's executions in 1533. Roughly book-ending Quilago's era in the body with those would help a lot. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Provided bookends. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Ugalde 2019 is never used in a citation. Is it used a general reference, or should it be moved to the Further reading section? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Moved to further reading. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. "cacica" is used in the lead but is unsourced and unmentioned in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. When scholars describe the well incident as "folkloric", are they casting doubt on it being an actual historical event? If so, should the story be attributed up front to scholars that view the event as real? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   No it's the explanation of the existence of shaft tombs that was folkloric. I haven't seen any sources dispute the event itself. I may not have explained that correctly. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I would suggest something like "consider this story to be the origin of a folkloric explanation for the use". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I got access to Hyland but haven't dug in too deep, and she does use "myth" and "legend" to describe the Quilago story. I know some fields use those subject-specific definitions for those terms that are have less of a doubting connotation as their everyday uses. Do you have reason to believe Hyland treats the story as generally historical? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Hyland describes the Quito manuscript as a "complex mythic history" and calls it "one of the most remarkable collections of indigenous South American myths and history known to exist". She also writes that "throughout this history, numerous legends are recounted on a variety of topics". So the lines between myth, legend and history are a bit blurry here. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. "should not be cowed by soldiers led by a woman": readers will think this is quoting the Sapa Inca. We can attribute this to Naranjo Gomezjurado or paraphrase. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Paraphrased. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Now that there's not quoted material, you can drop the citation after "led by a woman", as the next Naranjo Gomezjurado citation can cover both sentences. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Dropped. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. "The Caranqui occupied Sarance": better not to use "occupied" for variety and clarity. Source uses "fortified". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Changed to "secured". --Grnrchst (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. It would be better to explain that Sarance was in present-day Otavalo, especially since Sarance isn't mentioned in the target article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. When Benavides describes Cochasquí as "emblematic", he's referring to the archaeological/historical importance of the site. We could drop the line, just mention that it was part of the kingdom, or break out of the chronology for a moment to note it's modern importance. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Noted modern importance. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. "she was forced to marry": this is explicitly supported by Benavides 2008, but Benavides 2011 doesn't go into the specifics. Drop that part of the citation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Dropped. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. "The Sapa Inca tactically withdrew": this is the first use of "Sapa Inca" in the body, so the link used later should be moved here. Consider a little in-text explanation of the term. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Moved. I think the link serves well enough for the explanation. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. "according to the archaeological narrative ... their child was supposedly Atahualpa": should probably drop the "supposedly", unless two layers of attribution/doubt are needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Dropped. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. "native Quiteño people": does this refer to the people of Quito? A link to the city could help, as could some brief in-text explanation. If the sources draw a connection between Quilago's Kingdom of Quito and the modern city and its people, it would help to make that explicit here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Changed to refer to indigenous peoples of Ecuador. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Can "has served to deny the indigenous peoples of Ecuador their own historical continuity" be explained further? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   It's really what it already says, the story's appropriation by Ecuadorian nationalism has centred the a retroactive conception of the Ecuadorian nation at the expense of indigenous people's own history. From Benavides 2008, p. 1068:

   At another level this historical identification of the site with Ecuador’s contemporary territorial disputes with Peru also has its own hermeneutical benefits—because it is precisely this over-identification with the Ecuadorian-Peruvian conflict that allows the site to further erase the inherent racial demarcation that defines the Ecuadorian nation-state. At Cochasquí identification with the greater national formations allows the site to be used to legitimize an Indian past. This is ironic since those same ancestral Indian communities—along with Afro-Ecuadorians and “cholos”—continue to be treated in inhuman and racist manners in the country. I reiterate: the site is hailed as a marker of national identification while depending on the very denial of the contemporary Indian groups’ identities whose past is being appropriated as Ecuadorian. It is in this manner that a historical continuity is denied to the Indian communities, yet Cochasquí is at the heart of the nation’s narrative about its post-pre-Hispanic future.

   --Grnrchst (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   That writing is ... tough to penetrate. I'll think more on it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Grnrchst, my suggestion here would be to (a) attribute this to Benavides (as Fine-Dare does) and (b) expand it slightly to explicitly note the mistreatment of present-day indigenous Ecuadorians. I think that second part is a key part of Benavides' analysis, and hopefully including it will make his meaning more readily apparent. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Attributed and expanded on. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. "Her title has since been passed down": that the title Quilago has influenced names is supported by the source. Using "Her title" and placing this in legacy makes it seem like the names are in honor of the person Quilago, not the title more generically. Is this supported by the source. I'm thinking not, but I am reading using machine translation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Clarified. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. "Atahualpa has been held to be the 'first true Ecuadorian'": this is supported explicitly by Benavides, who is being quoted, and not quite so strongly by Becker & Tutillo, who describe Atahualpa in this version of the legend as a "son of Ecuador" (hijo de Ecuador). Becker & Tutillo could be dropped, summarized in the body, or mentioned in an explanatory note in the footnote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Split and included quote from Becker & Tutillo. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. Per MOS:CREDITS, the photo caption should probably be truncated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Truncated. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All suggestions in this section are optional and not required by the GA criteria. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Consider adding alt text to the images to help with accessibility. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]