• "sacred zone" is in quotes in the lead but not in the text. The quotes do not seem necessary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. RO^(talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A map of the site itself would be really useful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are already maps in Description and Construction. RO^(talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawley maps are not very legible or clear, I realize it may not be feasible or eays, but getting some good graphics of the site outline relative to local topology would be a really useful addition. Maybe the people at the graphics lab can help.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more detailed and higher quality maps in the external links. RO^(talk) 18:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to an interactive map as an external media ([6]). RO^(talk) 19:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a link to the interactive map of Chaco Canyon that includes topography ([7]). Does this satisfy the need for detailed maps? RO^(talk) 20:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt find Chetro Ketl on that interactive map. What I am thinking of is more a map of the outline of the site relative to the canyons topography. Also remember that comments are suggestions, not requirements. Go back and look at the article to see if you agree with me that the map would improve it. Then consider whether the time spent on making a map or having someone make it would be well spent. Then make a decisions. You dont need me or others to approve everything you do.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two clicks. 1. Click on Chaco Canyon, 2. "Downtown Chaco", and Chetro Ketl is one of those sites that correspond to the Chaco Park map also included in the Location section. Or I could just link right to here ([8]). Since I don't know how to make one of these nor do I know anyone who would likely do it for me this is an easy one to answer, but even if I was a cartographer I seriously doubt I could produce a more helpful or informative version than the Chaco Research Archive. I'll go with the external media links since my time is much better spent editing than learning to make topographic maps, which I've never done. I was only asking to see if you were willing to agree to an alternate method for providing this information. RO^(talk) 20:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unfamiliar with the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. They are good at producing useful maps, based on other online maps. While perhaps not better than official maps they have the additional virtue of being public domain.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't know how that works, but what could they produce that would be superior to the Google satellite images and the NPS map File:NPS map of Chaco Culture National Historic Park.png? I guess I'm not comprehending what's missing. RO^(talk) 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine something like [9], but with the site outline set on a topographic map showing its relative position to the canyon, and with labels for the different structures. This is also nice: [10] ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but it also sounds like lots of work. It would simple take too much time for me to learn the needed skills to do that, and I'm all out of favors. Who would be willing to make this? RO^(talk) 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't click on the link to the graphics lab? You make a section there describing what you need, with some links to the images you would like it to look like, and then one of the nice graphics people make it for you when they have time.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I get the chance. RO^(talk) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But have you seen this ([11])? RO^(talk) 01:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made requests at the Graphics Lab, but it looks like they are pretty backed up. RO^(talk) 20:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not crazy about the organization which has discovery and description before the history of construction.

How would you order them? RO^(talk) 17:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See below, I think a chronological order would be better: i.e. "Ancestral Puebloans/Background">"Construction">"Abandonment">"Discovery", and then the description of the site as it is now, and the ongoing deterioration etc.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But then the deterioration would be out of chronology with the excavation, which led to much of the deterioration. How does the order look now? RO^(talk) 18:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense regarding deterioration. The current structure looks better to me. I understand that it is complicated to disentangle the past from its interpretation by current archaeologists, and that how to do it exactly requires some thought and deliberation. The agriculture and roads sections are kind of orphaned. They might want to be integrated into the construction section. Or theymight want to be integrated into the "description" section. The etymology section is also out of place in the description section, generally etymology sections go in the general background information in the beginning - maye it is better yet interated into the rediscovery section, where it can be discussed together with the question of who actually was the first to name it Chetro Ketl.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look ([12])? Would you move anything else? RO^(talk) 19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It makes more sense. As your write you will probably want to read for coherence, and see if certain things presuppose that other things are already mentioned - that may motivate further exchange of material between sections to get the best flow of information.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the continuity has undoubtedly been disturbed, but I wouldn't spend any time yet fixing that until the order has been agreed upon, so do you think this order makes the most sense, or can you foresee future suggestions to further reorder? RO^(talk) 19:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the excavation section is now cut off from the rediscovery section, and since most of the excavations took place in the first half of the 20th century, maybe it would be more chronological to have them before the description section. I think having the deterioration section apart is justifiable as this is a still ongoing process.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with having excavation before description; that's where I originally had it. RO^(talk) 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like more background about the Ancestral Puebloan culture and history, its place among other great kivas, how great kivas are thought to have been used, (what is a sacred zone?), was it inhabited, was it used for rituals? I would suggest adding a background section before the discovery section to provide this kind of historical cultural context. I would integrate the abandonment section into that. Possibly also the construction section could moved up ahead of the discovery section, to get a more chronological structure.

This article is not about the culture, for that we have Ancestral Puebloans, Kiva, and at Chaco Culture National Historical Park, an FA, we have lots of detail about the culture. This article is about the structure, not the culture. There are more than a dozen of these articles, and we need not repeat cultural points in 15 different places. RO^(talk) 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The structure is meaningless without information about the culture that produced it and who lived in it and used it. And yes every article needs to provide the information necessary to understand the topic. In summary style, but it needs to be there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this goes to FA, it will almost certainly require a brief summary of the culture. I have seen various archaeological site articles get culture paragaraphs in order to make it through, and they are better articles for it. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll write a section that summarizes the culture. RO^(talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage looking at FAs like Quiriguá, Takalik_Abaj to see how cultural information can be integrated into articles about archeological sites.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll do that. Thanks for the tip! RO^(talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The one on Angkor Wat is of an older date and not of the same standard as the two Maya articles I mentioned, but it may also be worth looking at. I was surprised at how few FAs for archeological sites we have. This will be the first in North America!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus and Simon Burchell, I've added a background section. What do you think? RO^(talk) 20:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Construction: This section could be expanded. Information about the sources of the timber (which apparently was transported some 75 kms to the site), and about the chronology of construction (archeological phases) would be useful. Some possible sources:[13][14][15]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add some more about the tree harvesting, The Architecture and Dendrochronology of Chetro Ketl has all of that, but as for construction chronology, did you read the last two paragraphs in the section ([16])? RO^(talk) 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you give the names and ranges of periods, but do not describe which structures were built there. Lekson et al 2007 for example describes the changes to the Great Kiva over the different periods.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawley sketches provide a visual representation of what was constructed during each phase. Yes. I could go into more detail about the construction, but summary style demands that some details are omitted for succinctness (if that's really a word). RO^(talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more details about the tree felling ([17]). Thanks for the Betancourt et all cite, which I've utilized. RO^(talk) 23:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While the term Ancestral Puebloan is clearly preferable in general, I think many readers would benefit from at least mentioning the word Anasazi at some point, even if just in a parenthesis.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work it into the not yet written background section. RO^(talk) 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The possible Mesoamerican connection is intriguing. Lekson et al 2007, talk at some length about similarities with Tula, Hidalgo, especially in terms of the colonnade. Their conclusion, that it is a likely imitation of Tula style is inclusion worthy I think.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's already mentioned in Description: Colonnade. RO^(talk) 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not. It mentions Toltec and a suggestion that the colonnade has something to do with Quetzalcoatl. But it does not mention Tula - which is what ties the elements colonnade/Mesoamerica/Toltec/Quetzalcoatl together.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant that the Mesoamerican connection is mentioned, but if you are specifically talking about a direct connection with Tula, I would say that Lekson, Windes, and Fournier, say in "The Changing Faces of Chetro Ketl" from The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, "we conclude that the Chetro Ketl colonnade is a local architectural interpretation of Mexican models". They think Mesoamerican influenced northern Mexico, and Northern Mexico influenced Chaco Canyon, which I have included as a quote. I can add more background detail about the theory, but the academic consensus is currently represented. RO^(talk) 21:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have there now:

In Lekson, Windes, and Fournier's opinion, the Mesoamerica-Chaco connection "may have been the result of an interaction mechanism of indirect contact between nuclear Mesoamerica and Chaco though northwestern Mexico", but "the development and dispersion of traits such as the colonnaded halls cannot be attributed to the Toltecs."[90]

I see no need to go into detail about Tula when the academic consensus is that "the colonnaded halls cannot be attributed to the Toltecs". RO^(talk) 21:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the question of "Toltecs" even comes up is because Tula, Hidalgo is the only other site with a similar colonnade. Not mentioning it but talking about Colonnades and Toltecs and Quetzalcoatl is very weird - and not very helpful to the reader. I've taken the liberty to add a sentence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tula, Hidalgo is the only other site with a similar colonnade. I'm not sure that's accurate. According to Lekson et al, "Colonnaded halls ... predate Tula. Pilasters have been identified in residential compounds and palaces like ... Teotihuacán [and] Plazuelas".(2007, page 168) RO^(talk) 21:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain why they spend three pages talking about Tula Hidalgo in a short paper on Chetro Ketl?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But have you read those pages or are you going by a Google snippet view? Because Lekson et al are basically debunking the idea that there was a direct connection between Chaco and Tula. Tula influenced Northern Mexico, then Northern Mexico influenced Chaco, and that's what I included. I know you mean well, but the problem with tacking on a topic sentence like this one: ([18]), is that it's not supported by the following citation. RO^(talk) 21:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the entire Lekson et al. 2007, yes. I have not looked at the Ferdon citation, but it is unimaginable that he is not mentioning Tula when he makes the arguments that he does. The only premise under which it makes sense to posit Toltec influence in Chaco Canyon is because of observed similarities with Tula. Yes, they end up refuting the argument but that does not mean that the argument has not been made. The section right now does not make sense at all, unless the reader surmises that those arguments about Toltecs were made because of the similarity with Tula's colonnade. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not cited to Ferdon, it's cited to Vivian and Hilpert. RO^(talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is from Ferdon's 1955 paper on architectural similrities between Mexico and the US Southwest.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How's this look ([19])? RO^(talk) 21:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks backwards. Why would Ferdon suggest a Quetzalcoatl cult and Pochtecas out of the blue? Based on what observation? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find a source that explicitly says Ferdon was connecting Tula and Chaco, but as I said, there are also colonnades at Teotihuacán and Plazuelas, and colonnades in the region predate Tula. RO^(talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But neither of those places had any "Toltecs". I can't access Ferdon's 1955 paper, which should probably be cited directly instead of just second hand.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lekson et al (page 166) seem to suggest that Ferdon's theory was vague, but later archeologists specifically mentioned Tula. Vivian and Hilpert are experts, and there is nothing wrong with using secondary sources like theirs to represent Ferdon's position. RO^(talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absent a citation that says Ferdon specifically referred to Tula, how does this look (be nice) ([20]). RO^(talk) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toltec = Inhabitant of Tula. > "Detect a Toltec influence" = "Detect similarity with Tula".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Toltecs, Tula Tollan or Toltecs can refer to one of two things: either the residents of the highland Mexican, Postclassic city of Tula and Tollan the home of Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl; or the residents of any number of urban centers that lived and died before the conquest. Residents of Teotihuacán, for example, were sometimes considered Toltecs."(Mesoamerican Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs of Mexico and Central America. page 312. Oxford University Press, 2002)

Yes. Tula was the capital city of the kingdom, but to say that only residents of Tula were Toltecs is not accurate. RO^(talk) 15:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Lekson, The Architecture and Dendrochronology of Chetro Ketl, he includes this note under Ferdon's entry in the bibliography: "Comparison of the Colonnade (Rooms 32, 76, 81, 105) and other architectural details at Chetro Ketl to forms in Central Mexico and the Yucatan." (page 337) Which would seem to indicate that Ferdon based his theory on much more than just Tula, including elements from the Yucatan. I agree that Ferdon must have mentioned Tula in his paper, but Lekson does not mention Tula in the above cited work, which is arguably the most comprehensive study of the architecture of Chetro Ketl ever published. Also, this paper, "Ancient Cultural Interplay of the American Southwest in the Mexican Northwest", mentions the Toltecs without mentioning Tula ([21]). RO^(talk) 16:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Toltec equals Inhabitant of Tula[reply]

Not true. Colhuacan, Tulancingo, and Huapalcalco where also significant Toltec cities. RO^(talk) 21:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No they were not. If you are going to try to school me in Mesoamerican archeology I am not going to waste more time here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Burchell, will you please comment here? Does Toltec refer only to people who lived in Tula? Wasn't the first Toltec city Colhuacan? RO^(talk) 20:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, I don't understand what this point of contention has to do with the article. The section mentions Tula and states: "the colonnaded halls cannot be attributed to the Toltecs" ([22]). What more do you want it to say? RO^(talk) 21:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bottom

Comment Doesn't Etymology usually go at the top of an article? It does is in settlement articles I've promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was moved for chronology sake, since Chetro Ketl probably didn't exist as a name until 1849. RO^(talk) 21:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do this in pieces, since it is fairly long and densely written. Seems generally good.

Lede

• "dramatic crop failures". I wonder if the word "dramatic" is worth dispensing with.
• Although the photograph probably makes it clear, it should IMO be stated in the first paragraph what the house was made of.
• "irrigated farms fields" Farms doesn't work as an adjective in AmEng. Maybe either take off the s or make it "irrigated fields for farming". I'd go with Column B. For similar reasons I think I'd make "fresh-water" into "freshwater". Ditto "In the cliffs" to "On the cliffs"
• If they call it "downtown Chaco" then shouldn't downtown be capped?
• Since the fourth paragraph of the lede would normally, I think, be split into two paragraphs except you can't because that would make it 5, I wonder if the lede is trying to do too much.
• "early 19th century" 1849, I suppose, is marginally more early than it is late, still ...
• Can kiva be linked for us peons? Variety of coffee, I thought.

Background

• I wonder at the structure of the article, it seems very linear. Can the sections about the history be grouped under the heading "history"?
• "At least two groups of transitional Basketmaker II peoples inhabited the San Juan Basin" should it be people rather than peoples?
• "During the years 1 to 400" This sounds exact, possibly because of the use of the year 1. Possibly it should be made a little more vague: "During the first four centuries CE"?
• "enabled the boiling" Perhaps "permitted the boiling". Would a "for the first time" be justified?
• "at least two such communities had been established in Chaco Canyon; the largest and most consequential is known as the La Plata.[7] One of the earliest La Plata settlements," this is mildly confusing. I think of a "community" as a village or neighborhood, perhaps, but this seems to imply a culture with several areas. (also, the use of the "the" before La Plata in one usage and not in the other looks odd, though I am sure it is correct.
• "when the canyon was home to a few hundred people" this actually sheds no light on the earlier part of the sentence, so I don't know why it is included as a part thereof. Can the dominant theory as to why the village came not to be occupied be stated?
• " the very first pueblos" you should probably link here to pueblo. A bit about what this shift meant in terms of the kind of structures built might be good.
• "emigrants from". Not my strong suit, but I think this should be "immigrants from"--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this, Wehwalt! I've attempted to address most of your above suggestions with this series of edits: ([23]). As for the others, Lekson coined the term "downtown Chaco", and he doesn't cap it, so neither did I. Taking a quick look at others that use the term I see that they too leave it lower-cased. I couldn't see a good spot to insert sandstone in the first paragraph, so I added it to the mention of how many blocks were used.

RE: I wonder at the structure of the article, it seems very linear. Can the sections about the history be grouped under the heading "history"? Which sections would you make level three? I assume you mean Construction through Excavation?

RE: "when the canyon was home to a few hundred people" this actually sheds no light on the earlier part of the sentence, so I don't know why it is included as a part thereof. Can the dominant theory as to why the village came not to be occupied be stated? I'm not aware of any prevailing theory on why Shabik'eshchee Village was abandoned, but it's likely that the residents moved to a pueblo in the canyon. I mention the population here not as a reflection on Shabik'eshchee, but to give the reader a sense of how many people lived in the canyon before the great house building began. RO^(talk) 16:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more.

Picking up

Location

• A sentence on how the canyon came to be, geologically speaking, would not be amiss.
• Is the external image in accord with policy? Not saying it isn't, just the first time I've seen one.

Construction

• Unless I'm missing something, you never actually say what the building's made of nor how, in general terms, it was constructed. There's much discussion of trees. Were logs used, or smaller bits of lumber? If the logs were used, how were they transported over rather difficult country? I see discussions of masonry and the images suggest that stone was used, but what do I know? If stone was used, was it local or was more suitable stone brought in from elsewhere if the local rocks wouldn't do? Roofs? (I see at the end of the section, "sandstone blocks" is thrown in, but a bit late to the party)
• "regular annual intervals" this seems unclear to me.
• "The population of the great house might have been large enough that laborers gathered structural wood during the agricultural season, or this might indicate that groups of Chacoans were dedicated to tree felling irrespective of the farming season, when most others were busy with field preparation and planting." If I'm reading this right, both alternatives seem to amount to the same thing: there were enough Chacoans that even during the farming season, they had labor they could devote to tree-felling.
• "Dendrochronology" Not linked on first use. You do link on second use.

Abandonment

• Why did people settle in the outlying communities? Should be explained, I think.
• "A haphazardly applied layer of rubble veneer to ceremonial areas in Chetro Ketl's great kiva" Rubble veneer appears to be a technique to construct walls. I gather what happened is they constructed them to shield wall decorations from the elements, but the article sounds like horizontal areas were covered with it.

Re-discovery

• "The proper archeological investigation" possibly scientific for proper.
• "after an invitation to survey the canyon" from?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Background
  • crystalize: looking in Merriam-Webster it seems that "crystallize" is the normal American spelling. For "crystallise" they say "British variant of crystallize". It looks as if this one needs the double ell (and zed).
• Construction
  • The population of the great house might have been large enough that laborers gathered structural wood during the agricultural season, or this might indicate that groups of Chacoans were dedicated to tree felling irrespective of the farming season, when most others were busy with field preparation and planting. Wehwalt has also mentioned this. There seems no distinction between the alternatives, although it did make more sense once I had read page 239 of ref 28, where it is clear that the distinction is between enough in-house labour even at busy times and the existence of specialized groups elsewhere in the area. Perhaps rephrase this to make it clearer and change the ref to just page 239.
• Re-discovery
  • Is "Rediscovery" not better? Again looking in Merriam-Webster the entry is a collection of words including the "re-" prefix, but all of them are listed without the hyphen. MOS:HYPHEN says "There is a clear trend to join both elements ... particularly in American English."
• Excavation
  • who is R. Gwinn Vivian?
  • I didn't understand the reference to "dry hole" in the quote ending "... the notion that Chetro Ketl was a 'dry hole'": the preceding "although" leads the reader to expect the following phrase to have the opposite meaning. This was also clearer once I had read the reference. I think it is necessary to rephrase the paragraph from "Lekson notes that..." on, perhaps without the quotes, clarifying the reference to the later discovery of wooden figures and archaeologists' general disappointment.
• Great kiva
  • How high was the internal space when the roof was present (one, two, ... stories)? Was the roof a single span or were there supporting posts?
• Agriculture and pottery
  • I particularly like this section and its accompanying illustrations. Would it be possible to do something similar for the various types of stonework so the reader can see a picture of each next to the description?

This is about an evocative period of American prehistory and is a worthy subject for a featured article. --Mirokado (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]