Jump to content

Talk:Valley of Mexico

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeValley of Mexico was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 11, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 7, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Valley of Mexico has been one of the most heavily populated places on the planet for almost two millennia?

[Untitled][edit]

I have coordinates for the valley from the source I named as Lafragua. However, I do not know how to integrate them into the article. It did not seem right to put them in the body. The coordinates are between parallels 19º03’36” and 20º11’24” North and 98º12’00” and 99º31’12” West. Thanks Thelmadatter (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the coordinate system doesn't allow for ranges, but I've added the coords for about the centre of the range you've given. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Blofeld[edit]

Intro - "a small gap to the north where there are no high peaks" - needs rewording small gap sounds out of place The Bald One White cat 11:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

INtro- "Geologically, it consists of three parts, but somehwat confusingly you then state that, "The Valley of Mexico can be subdivided into four basins", but the largest and best-studied is the area which contains Mexico City itself. Could you please make this clearer?

I think I managed it. I wish we could steal the diagram that is in the Lafregua reference (#4) and then indicate where the lakebed is. In the other three basins, its just piedmont and mountains with no water accumulation (it all goes to the largest section of the valley. Ill ask the BF (a graphic designer) if he'd be interested in creating a new version of that diagram.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. It would also be a good idea to stub the articles which are red linked as this also imporves the article appearance. Its a good looking article, I'll read the lower sections laterbut from what I gather should be well on its way with only minor edits needed now. The Bald One White cat 16:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of article[edit]

I find it odd that the inhabitation of the valley was moved over and above the general description of it.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History generally becomes before geography in wikipedia articles. Usually it relies on the intro to understand where it is first so it isn't as if there is no context. The Bald One White cat 17:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply] 


‘Just after the conquest, disease and violence had decreased the population in the valley’

A decrease of the population due to Old World diseases was already occurring during the actual battles between the Aztecs and armies that were in many instances comprised primarily of members of other native nations. The ravages of these diseases was in all likelihood responsible for far more deaths than actual warfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.107.76 (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination critique[edit]

Some thoughts on this article:

  • The lead paragraph starts by saying where it's located. This goes against the Manual of Style which says: "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?""
  • The reference ""Mexico City: Opportunities and Challenges for Sustainable Management of Urban Water Resources" is used nearly 30 times, particularly for some rather controversial statements such as "Around 2,000 years ago, the Valley of Mexico became one of the world’s most densely populated areas and has remained so since" and other statements dealing with the pre-Columbian population. I would suggest that this paper is not the best source for pre-Columbian population or other matters, since the focus of the paper, and presumably the expertise of the authors, is on water management, not history or archaeology. It is also disturbing that we don't even know who the authors are.
  • The statement "In the early 8th century, with the rise of the Toltec empire, Teotihuacan ceased to be a major urban centre and the population shifted to Tollan or Tula on the northern front of Valley of Mexico." implies to me at least that the Toltec empire caused the decline of Teotihuacan, which is not necessarily the case.
  • The headings seem to be inconsistently sized.
  • There are broken parentheses and square brackets and some rather clumsy wordings throughout.

I do think that some major and excellent work has brought this important article to its present level, but it requires some further polishing and work before it could be categorized as a Good Article. I'll try to help, but am tied up with non-WP work nowadays. Thanks, Madman (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add, that nowadays the description of a "Toltec empire" has little currency in modern scholarship, the whole toltec concept has undergone considerable review. I think the article as a whole is pretty good, but the precolumbian history bit could use some more polishing. Unfortunately like Madman my time's limited ATM, but if I do manage to free some up over the next couple weeks will see if I can help out. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a proper lead paragraph per the Manual of Style. I still find the now-second paragraph to be rather confusing. Madman (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Valley of Mexico/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections; images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall impression[edit]

I really enjoyed this article until I got to section "Air pollution". That section and the whole of the Hydrology section are too long and contain too much detail. Both need pruning. For example"Air pollution" can be summed up as:

The large, dense population and presence of millions of vehicle cause severe air pollution in the Valley. There is only one gap in the surrounding hilss, and the complex wind currents, varying from place to place and during the day as the temperature changes, do little to remove pollutants. In addition the Valley suffers from thermal inversions, especally in winter, so that cool air is trapped by a higher layer of warmer air. Although the more consistent summer winds help to clear the air, the high temperatures increase the formation of ozone and other ... As a result ... The concentration of lead in the air has been ... However levels of ... are still far above acceptable levels.

I understand how easy it is to go into too much detail, as I occasionally fall into the same trap. For example while working on Evolutionary history of life I wrote too much on the very earliest life, realised how long the article would be if I continued in the same style, copied the over-detailed material to my sandbox and then covered the topic much more concisely in the article. I suggest you save the "Air pollution" and "Hydrology" sections to sandbox pages, then rewrite these sections of the article starting with very concise summaries. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote this section but I do not think I can shorten it to what you seem to indicate. Air and water pollution are major factors in the quality of life here. Further below, you make a bunch of smaller comments on the section which I do not know how to square with what you wrote here.189.145.58.3 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the difficulty because all factors reinforce each other. I think a useful approach with such complex issues is to draft an outline outside the article, e.g on its Talk page. A bullet list is a useful outlining tool because you can list top-level apsects and then contributory points within each one, for example - and this is only an example:
  • Lead sentence - this is sufficiently long and complex to need its own lead sentence.
  • Causes:
    • High concentration of people and cars, increasing per capita use of fossil fuels.
    • Winter wind patterns:
      • Mainly N-S, inwards through the only gap in the surrounding hills.
      • Erratic within the Valley.
      • Thermal inversion.
    • Summer - no inversion, S-N winds, but intense tropical sunlight causes ozone build-up.
    • Rainy season (is this same as or overlapping with summer?) washes out some pollutants.
  • Effects:
    • Surrounding hill have becom hidden by smog since 1940s.
    • Levels of various pollutants.
    • Loss of working hours due to respiratory problems.
  • Efforts to mitigate pollution, and results.
You also need to be ruthlessly concise with the phrasnig, cutting out everything that is not absolutely essential. For example, while I'm sure Mexicans are justifiably proud of Dr. Molina's Nobel Prize, neither his name nor the Prize are essentila here - especially as he won the Prize for work on a different type of environmental problam.
Two other tips:
  • Check this diff, as I think it may have droppoed a couple of points that might be useful.
Save the current version of the "Pollution" section (or the one before the edits shown in the diff) in a sub-page (e.g. Valley of Mexico/Pollution work area) so that you easily access text and refs during the re-write. It will also make you more confident about approaching the re-write, as you can restore the previous version if you run into difficulties.
And use the same approach for "Hydrology". --Philcha (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage[edit]

  • I'd expect to see something about the economics of the region, e.g. average income relative to rest of Mexico and to e.g. OECD average, dominant industries and any that are notably rising or declining (the obvious contrast in the USA is Silicon Valley vs the "rustbelt"), whether work locations are dispersed or concentrated (concentration leads to the joys of commuting, traffic congestion and pollution). I notice section "Spanish colonial rule and the Mexico City metropolitan area" says what % of Mexico's GDP the region produces, and suggest the other economnic info should go there too. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The valley is a geographic region, not an economic one. When talking about economics here Mexico City and the greater metropolitan area are always discussed. Fact of the matter is that the two are almost co-extensive. "Valley of Mexico" seems to be restricted to geography and to culture.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

  • Having the history before the geography looks wrong to me - even after reading the comment at Talk:Valley of Mexico that "History generally becomes before geography in wikipedia articles". Placing the geography first would have the advantage of defining the place names and allowing the reader to build a mental map for use while reading the rest - or at least already knowing where to look for places. Environmental concerns (pollution, dessication, etc.) appear to be scattered around, and should be grouped together. So I'd arrange the article: Geography; Climate; Hydrology; History; Environmental concerns; Notable places. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Tip: place the "in use" template at the top of the article to discourage other editors from editing while you're re-structuring. --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

First human habitation[edit]

Pre-Teotihuacan[edit]

Teotihuacan and the Toltecs[edit]

  • "Around 2,000 years ago, the Valley of Mexico became one of the world’s most densely populated areas and has remained so since" slightly surprises me, as China was way ahead of everyone else technologically and economically as the time. Can you please recheck that the source says all of this. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first occurrence of Teotihuacan should be wiki-linked. I usuually wiki-link first occurrence of a term in each section, unless there's a run of short sections - then I generally wiki-link terms and names about every 2nd section. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hamnett refs are to a book. WP:CITE says page numbers should be given for refs to books. If there's a chapter title, you should provide that too. I don't mind if you give chapter titles without page numbers, provided the chapters are fairly short (under 10 pages) - that reduces the number of actual distinct refs needed, and is better for readers / reviewers if a book has editions with different pagination. Reviewers of articles I've submitted have been happy with this idea. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A map that shows the locations of all the settlements named would be handy from here on. If you find or produce a map with symbols in the right places but no names,I can use template:Annotated image to add them - the result is clearer than text embedded in graphics, and easy to move around if the image is displayed at a different size. Note that the map image's description page should have one or more citations showing where you got the info. --Philcha (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The historical facts about the Toltecs are a controversial topic. I suggest "Toltec culture", i.e don't imply that there was single Toltec state. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please clarify whether there was an actual decline at Teotihuacan or other centres simply out-grew it. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec Empire: The rise of the city-state in the valley[edit]

Spanish colonial rule and the Mexico City metropolitan area[edit]

Geography[edit]

Climate[edit]

Air pollution[edit]

Hydrology[edit]

The old lake system[edit]

History of water control in the valley[edit]

  • This section and the next do not highlight the present-day dilemma that some of the sources mention: the rainy season is short but heavy; because of the intensive building and almost completely hard artificial surface (mainly concrete), the rain does not drain into to the soil and causes floods; Mexico City's huge population and inefficient water use cause excessive extraction from aquifers that are not being replenished in the rainy season; hence the city is sinking. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section has content that is superfluous and lengthens an already long article, please make it shorter. This article is about the Valley of Mexico, not Enrico Martínez, Porfirio Díaz or specific canals. The important things are:
    • The flood of 1555 was resonsible for the idea of opening drainage canals. How much damage did the 1555 flood do? What caused it? Had the Aztecs had trouble with floods?
    • The first project (completed when?) was the Nochistongo, draining ito the Tula valley. Did not prevent the Great Flood of 1629. How much damage did the 1629 flood do? What caused it?
    • Grand Canal largely completed in 1867, but did not prevent further floods.
    • City sank. Why? --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emisor Central buit - when? --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should mention that the present-day floods are not just rainwater but sewage as well --Philcha (talk)
  • In the "Grand Canal was built parallel to the Nochistongo one ending in Tequixquiac", do you mean the Grand Canal ended at Tequixquiac? Please clarift the text. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the Grand Canal have a diameter? I can understand width and depth, but ... Is this a language issue? In normal English a canal is an artificial water-way with an open surface. Do you mean it is (mainly) a tunnel?--Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "did not solve the problem of flooding in the city", where there any major floods after 1867? --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "From the beginning of the 20th century, Mexico City began to sink rapidly", why?
  • Re "continued sinking of the city (as much as seven meters) weakens the system of water collectors and pumps" do you mean they were damaged or blocked, or simply that they were not strong enough to raise the water another 7m? Please clarify the text. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Emisor Central, how was it "damaged by overwork"? -Philcha (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking water and sinking=[edit]

Link check[edit]

I recommend you use the Link checker - it's listed at User:Philcha#Tools if you forget to make a note of it. At the time of writing the report shows: --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two 404 "not found" codes. Usually the publisher has either taken the pages off line or re-organised the site and forgotton to add redirects. Your options are:
    • Remove the content - often painful.
    • Find new sources.
    • Use the Way Back Machine to search for a saved copy. If you use this, you must specify archiveurl=(page returned by WBM) and archivedate=(date of the archive copy you selected in the WBM's search results page).
  • A 101 "connection timeout". These are sometimes temporary, please recheck. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happens next[edit]

I expect to see significant improvements in the next 7 days, otherwise I will have to mark the article as a "fail". I would not be happy about this, as a lot of this article is pretty good. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted comments 7 days ago and there have been no responses here and no edits to the article (apart from 1 poss vandalism, reverted). If there is no action in the next couple of days I will have to mark the article as a "fail". --Philcha (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 40 points you've identified, article actually now looks further from GA standard than it appeared initially. I'm afraid that I don't have the books that Thelma has to correct some of the points. Thanks for your time in reviewing it I hope Thelma can address all of these points unfortunately he has been very quiet of late. I would fail it for now, but looks promising for the future anyway. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some other potentially useful sources[edit]

From Google Scholar, which is the best way to find good sources for articles in "academic" subjects:

GA review abandoned[edit]

Thelmadatter cannot respond to this review because of real-life difficulties. Hence I have to declare that the article has failed to reach GA status.

I regret having to do this, as it is an interesting and varied article. Apart from the need to make "Hydrology" more concise, most of the outstanding issues are fairly minor. Thanks for the work you've put into this. I hope the difficulties are quickly resolved and that the article passes as GA before too long. --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - - If you want to start a new section of the Talk page, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.

Real Life[edit]

Unfortunately, real life has gotten in the way... more work and health issues. It is not possible for me to address these issues in any timely way, if at all.Thelmadatter (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal for Anahuac (Aztec)[edit]

Recent page move from Valley of Mexico to Mexico Valley[edit]

User:Craftdraw recently moved this page from Valley of Mexico to Mexico Valley. While I agree that Mexico Valley is, strictly speaking, better grammatically, it does not accurately reflect common English-language usage in reliable sources.

As an example, I ran both terms through Google scholar.

Mexico Valley got 1170 hits, while Valley of Mexico got 17100 hits. Straight Google got 354000 hits for Valley of Mexico, while Mexico Valley got 34600 results. Given that both academic and common usage overwhelmingly favour Valley of Mexico, I propose that the page be moved back. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Craftdraw is indefinitely blocked, I'll go ahead and move the page back. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No brainer: Clearly the common name, and moved only recently by blocked editors and sockpuppets. Will require a little clean-up to get back where it was. — kwami (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC) — kwami (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Mexico Valley → Valley of Mexico – Valley of Mexico is the common name, see talk page. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly favor: this is clearly the common name and the multiple attempts to move to "Mexico Valley" (for which there is NO common use) are tiresome.Keizers (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Valley of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Valley of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valley_of_Mexico&oldid=1210827523"