Talk:Machu Picchu

Comments by Richard Nevell

It's great to see such an important article getting some attention. I'll aim to leave some feedback over the next couple of weeks. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Richard Nevell :) JustEMV (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Below are some preliminary comments. I will be adding more as I go through the article. For a topic this significance, it's not a small task to go through it (as I'm sure you know, JustEMV having already done a lot of work on the article)!

Structure

• The sections I would expect from an article like this are present.
• I would be tempted to make 'Current state' a level heading rather than 3, and then move its subsections up one.
• The presence of an 'In popular culture' section is valid.
• The plan is invaluable. I wonder if it should be centered and given the full width of the page as the detail and labels are not legible at the current thumbnail size.

Writing style

• At about 6,000 words the article is a suitable length for this kind of topics which has a large corpus of works discussing it. The challenge is not going into excessive detail (so far so good).
• Note: I'll also be considering the level of detail and how easy the text is to understand (again, so far so good).
• I wonder if (Köppen: Cwb, Trewartha: Cwll)} might be a bit too much detail when the more accessible subtropical highland climate is used immediately before.
• The 'Temple of the Sun or Torreón' section gives degrees for orientation of features but that's not done elsewhere. I think the article could get bogged down if it was done uniformly, I just wonder why it's significant here in particular.
• In the same section two measurements are given in feet (2' and 32') but elsewhere metric is used.
• When discussing moving the stones, large numbers of people are mentioned. Were draft animals likely to have been used as well?

Content (general points)

• The lead mentions that Machu Picchu is a major archaeological site, but doesn't mention what investigations have taken place there. This only needs to be a sentence summarising the activity. It would also be worth adding a sentence about preservation issues.
• The second paragraph of the 'Etymology' section cites both the peer-reviewed paper and a summary in a news outlet. I don't see a problem with having both, though only the peer-reviewed article is essential. If only the news article was used that would be an issue at FAC since a more authoritative source would be available but unused.
• There is no mention of burials/cemeteries at Machu Picchu, though the plan in Antiquity shows four cemeteries and these provide important evidence for dating activity at the site.
• When WHS status is mentioned in the 'Preservation' section I think it’s important to say that the WHS encompasses the main complex and its landscape, hence its large size.
• Reconciling the traditional dating of the site to c. 1450 and the new dates published in Antiquity is going to be an important aspect. I've read the conclusion of the Antiquity paper, and it seems like the case for earlier dating is strong (I will need to read it again). Has this new date started to be picked up by other researchers?
• The Daily life in Machu Picchu works well. I initially thought that it might go into too much detail on how we know that people moved great distances to live at Machu Picchu, but I think it makes use of an opportunity to explore that curiosity and is an appropriate level of detail.
• In the section on 'Agricultural activity' there are two statements that stood out: The terraces also enabled irrigation and Because of the ample rainfall at Machu Picchu, it was found that irrigation was not usually needed for the terraces. It's not quite a contradiction, but it is a little jarring.
• In the section on 'Human sacrifice and mysticism' I think it would be helpful to start with a sentence or two on the role human sacrifice in Incan culture. Specifically, what purpose did it serve, how prevalent was it, and who was involved? The Oxford Handbook of the Incas should be good for some board context. Let me know if there are bits you can't access.
• Animal, liquid and dirt sacrifices to the gods were more common and were made at the Altar of the Condor. This is a very interesting point, and makes me wonder if the section should be retitled and the order of the paragraph flipped so that you're talking about the most common types of sacrifice first.
• It is mentioned at the start of the 'History' section, but I think in the subsection 'Spanish conquest' it should be restated when Machu Picchu was abandoned and the presumed cause, as if someone skips to that part they won't have that information.
• In the section on 'Search for the Neo-Inca capital' I think the order of the first paragraph should be adjusted to begin with Lizárraga rediscovering Machu Picchu in 1902. It seems there aren't many details, but if we begin with Bingham he becomes the initial framing for the discovery.
• Though Bingham was not the first to visit the ruins, he was considered the scientific discoverer who brought Machu Picchu to international attention. The source for this is from 2008; I wonder if thinking has maybe shifted since then, especially with decolonisation becoming more of a concern for heritage professionals, historians, and archaeologists?
• The account of archaeological works begins and ends with Bingham, though the results of other investigations are mentioned. Could these be summarised?
• With each subsection on the 'Sites of interest' it might be helpful to say roughly where they are located at Machu Picchu, eg: in the residential district or near another significant feature.
• I assume that the Temple of the Sun or Torreón was used for sun worship. That may be a bit too obvious to state, so instead a sentence explaining the significance of the sun in Inca culture would be worthwhile.
• It might be worth explaining what the "Serpent's Door" is.
• Can we explain how the use of Temple of the Three Windows may have differed from the Temple of the Sun?
• I wonder if the section 'Dispute over cultural artifacts' could be integrated into 'Excavations and controversy (1912–1915)' above.
• The opening paragraph of the 'Construction' section needs a reference. It may also need a slight adjustment as in a European context ashlar is a method of finishing stone to have a smooth face rather than how it is laid, and ashlar walls can be either dry or with mortar.
• The significance of obsidian might need explanation. Is the expectation that it was used to create blades or cutting edges? This would only need a sentence at most, or could be tagged onto the end of an existing sentence.
• The 'In popular culture’ is fine as it is, but I wonder if there are any studies which give an overview of how the site is portrayed in popular culture. Has Machu Picchu had an effect on Peru's national identity?

Content (fine detail)

• When used in the infoxbox, Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu should be wikilinked (perhaps in the lead as well if the text were to be adjusted to say that Machu Picchu is part of the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu WHS, but that seems a bit clunky so I'm not sold on the idea).
• Machu Picchu was constructed in the classical Inca style: link the final three words to Inca architecture.
• Recent research published in 2022 suggests that the original Inca name of the site may have been Huayna Picchu: for the lead, I think we can trim this so it starts The original Inca name may have been..
• Maybe mention Agustín Lizárraga before Bingham in the lead.
• In File:Karta MachuPicchu.svg different coloured lines are used to indicate something, but it's not immediately clear what. There are labels, but we also need a key to understand what the orange, brown, and black lines mean – whether they represent different phases, different types of building, different levels of preservation etc.

More to come. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• A consensus among archaeologists is that Pachacutec ordered the construction of the royal estate for his use as a retreat, most likely after a successful military campaign. I think this sentence could be broken in two which would enhance its clarity, along the lines of A consensus among archaeologists is that Pachacutec ordered the construction of the royal estate after he conquered the region; this was part of a campaign of establishing royal estates along the Urubamba River. Machu Picchu's palace complex was perhaps used as a seasonal royal retreat.
• What is meant by religious specialists?
• Studies show that, according to their skeletal remains, most people who lived there I suggest changing to Studies of skeletal remains found at Machu Picchu show that most people who lived there
• Wikilink Augustinians and provide a date range for when the chronicle was written; "17th-century" would be fine, if you can be more precise, even "mid-17th-century", all the better.
• The section title 'Excavations and Controversy (1912–1915)' should be sentence case like the other headings so 'Excavations and controversy (1912–1915)'.
• When mentioning the 2017 possibility of Machu Picchu being added to the list of World Heritage Sites in Danger, I think it's worth specifying the reason (ie: the proposed airport).
• When inhabited by the Incas, the location of the city was a military secret: since the site is not mentioned in contemporary documents, this must be a modern(ish) theory. Perhaps this could be rewritten to say who suggests the location was secret.
• Machu Picchu: Unveiling the Mystery of the Incas uses the term 'palace' a lot; the same meaning is conveyed with the different terms, so I don't think there's a gap but it might be worth using it once or twice in case readers are looking for that kind of info.
• In the 'Layout' section it would be worth clarifying how many temples there are (is it just the named two?) when saying The temples are in the upper town, the warehouses in the lower..
• Maybe change The Intihuatana stone is a ritual stone which was used by the Incas to The Intihuatana is a ritual stone which was used by the Incas to avoid repetition.
• Also, I think it's worth moving the statement that the function of the stone is uncertain much earlier in the paragraph.
• Regarding For this reason, the cave was inaccessible for much of the year does the source actually say "inaccessible"? I would have thought that it would still be accessible with torches, but perhaps the authors think that's impractical (maybe it's too narrow for an open flame). I don't seem to have access to American Antiquity through my university affiliation, otherwise I'd check myself.
• nti Mach'ay is located on the eastern side of Machu Picchu: it's a little simpler to say nti Mach'ay is located on Machu Picchu's eastern side

Thank you @Richard Nevell I really appreciate the time you’ve taken for this review. I’ll be working through the points over the coming weeks, it’s quite a lot, as you noted. In the meantime, I’ve made some of the minor changes you suggested. JustEMV^🦙 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@JustEMV: I've not finished yet, but I've added some more comments above. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again @Richard Nevell. I agree with most of your points and will work on them; I just have a couple of comments/questions:

• Would it perhaps be better to change File:Karta MachuPicchu.svg to this site map or this other one outside the archaeological site
• Regarding the "scientific discoverer" title, although awareness of Lizárraga’s presence at Machu Picchu has increased, I think the general consensus remains that, even though Bingham did not "discover" the site (since others, i.e. Lizárraga, had been there before), he was primarily responsible for making it known internationally. As Bastante puts it "The llaqta of Machu Picchu was never lost, and therefore no one discovered it. Bingham had the privilege and the means to reveal its existence to science and the world." (translation mine). That said, some do use the title "official discoverer" for Lizárraga and "scientific discoverer" for Bingham, but I’m not sure it’s worth changing in this context.

I’ll add more comments as I keep working on the article. Thanks for your interest in this very important article! JustEMV^🦙 (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

On the map, I'd lean towards one of the non-sign options. I like the current plan with the use of colour as it's more eye-catching. I think File:Machu Picchu site map.png looks a little grainy. If someone at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop redrew it as an SVG the plan could be a lot clearer, but I'm not sure if it would be an improvement on the current plan. The current one is clearly presented, I just think there's more information being conveyed than is clear from the key. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

As for how to describe Bingham leaving it as it is is fine. I'd be tempted to include the Bastante quote as that summarises it perfectly, but I'm not sure where GAN/FAC stand on translations. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The completes my comments, though I'll be sticking around for discussion. And in case anything else occurs to me. Looking at the big picture, the article is in pretty decent condition. I think it would have a good chance at GAN and has good coverage of the topic. Where I've suggested more detail in places I think it comes down to providing a bit more context. That could help with FAC ambitions. I am not deeply familiar with the topic, but the information on how Machu Picchu connects to the landscape indicates that a wide selection of views have been integrated into the article. I've not done a comprehensive check of the sources, but those I've noticed are suitable and high quality. Where less specialist sources are used they're appropriately done, eg: being pair with the academic study they are summarising or covering news stories which are unlikely to get other kinds of coverage. Keep an eye out for parts without references, I spotted one short paragraph. User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages.js is handy for spotting those (it also highlights quotes and see also sections, but those can be ignored). Good work with this page, it's great to see someone take on such an important topic. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

One other thing occurs to me. User:Simon Burchell has edited the article a lot in the past and has a lot of experience with FAC, so if he has time to review the article I'm sure he would have some valuable insight. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell Thank you for the thoughtful review and helpful suggestions. I’ve been a bit busier than expected, but I’ll start working through your feedback step by step. Hopefully this will move the article toward GA status, and eventually FA. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to provide such a detailed feedback. JustEMV^🦙 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)