Talk:Machu Picchu/GA2

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

Nominator: JustEMV (talk · contribs) 20:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 23:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Comments will follow soon! Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Issue 1: The article is not concisely written. This is supposed to be a high-level overview, yet you include unnecessary detail, some of which (like journal titles or occupations of scientists within the text) should generally not appear in any Wikipedia article. Please also have a look at Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment.

• a 2021 study led by Richard L. Burger, professor of anthropology at Yale University),
• study in Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of the Institute of Andean Studies
• "it would not have been passed down in the line of succession." (completely unnecessary)
• Though the estate belonged to Pachacutec, religious specialists and temporary specialized workers (mayocs) lived there as well, most likely for the ruler's well-being and enjoyment. – The "Though" does not make sense to me. I think that readers would assume that in a royal estate, there will be persons other than the king. "Though the estate belonged to Pachacutec" could just be removed I think.
• Research showed that – This phrase is superfluous. Just remove it.
• Animals are also suspected to have been brought to Machu Picchu, as there were several bones found that were not native to the area. Most animal bones found were from llamas and alpacas. These animals naturally live at altitudes of 4,000 meters (13,000 ft) rather than the 2,400 meters (7,900 ft) elevation of Machu Picchu. Most likely, these animals were brought in from the Puna region for meat consumption and for their pelts. – A lot of words for little meaning. How about Most animal bones found were from llamas and alpacas, which naturally live at altitudes of 4,000 meters and were probably imported from the Puna region for meat and pelt production. That's much shorter, yet contains the same information.
• was grown there was mostly corn and potatoes, – Repetition
• as studies of the land show that there were landslides – again, see Principle of Some Astonishment linked above.
• This explains why studies done on the food that the Inca ate at Machu Picchu suggest it was – I hope you got the point?

Issue 2: Prose

• Construction appears to date from two Sapa Incas, Pachacutec Inca Yupanqui (1438–1471) and Túpac Inca Yupanqui (1472–1493). – I think this is poor wording. Something like "Construction appears to coincide with the reigns of two Sapa Incas …" would be better.
• chemical markers and osteological markers --> chemical and osteological markers

Issue 3: Understandability

• Urubamba, Urubamba River – neither linked nor explained
• "Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui" – all terms should be linked in the body again, not only in the lead

Issue 4: Undue weight Sometimes you just say "research has shown" or similar, and sometimes you introduce the studies in detail, e.g. Excavation and soil analyses done by Kenneth Wright[47][44] in the 1990s. How do you decide which study deserves this special treatment? How does this comply with WP:DUE?

Issue 5: Errors in referencing

• Burger, Richard L.; Salazar, Lucy C. C.; Nesbitt, Jason; Washburn, Eden; Fehren-Schmitz, Lars (2021). "New AMS dates for Machu Picchu: results and implications". Antiquity. 95 – You say in the citation "freely accessible" (the open key icon) but it's closed access.

Issue 6: Source-text integrity

• was occupied from around 1420 to 1530.[14] Similar conclusions supporting an earlier 15th-century chronology have been reported by other radiocarbon studies.[24][25] – This latter sentence does not check out. The most recent, and arguably most accurate, dating is 1435 and 1495. Your (1530) does not even fall within the 95% confidence interval of the 2024 study, hence saying they report a "similar conclusion" is not accurate. Why do you provide the date of an older source instead of the most recent one? Also see WP:AGE MATTERS.
• reporting 26 AMS radiocarbon measurements from human remains concluded that Machu Picchu was occupied from around 1420 to 1530 – it says 1532, not 1530
• Some suggest the German engineer J. M. von Hassel arrived earlier – Seems only to be a single person who suggested it. "Some" is very vague either way, suggest to just provide the facts. And who says he was an "engineer"?
• "The site may have been re-discovered and exploited in the late 19th century by the German engineer Augusto Berns." – Source says he probably does not visit the site, and says nothing about exploitation of Machu Picchu itself.
• Some suggest the German engineer J. M. von Hassel arrived earlier, – Where do the sources say that he arrived earlier?
• The site may have been re-discovered and exploited in the late 19th century by the German engineer Augusto Berns. – The sources seem to say early 20th century, not late 19th century?

Issue 7: Vagueness

• Similar conclusions supporting an earlier 15th-century chronology have been reported by other radiocarbon studies. – You write more abstract and complicated than needed (using the fancy word "chronology"), and be more vague at the same time. "Chronology" is not limited to when the site was first inhabited, so "earlier 15th-century chronology" does not make sense; the "chronology" is the entire history. How about "Other radiocarbon studies indicates that the site was first inhabited in xxx", which is also much more concise, precise, clearer, and more comprehensible?
• Instead, research into skeletal remains has found bone damage from various species of water parasites indigenous to different areas of Peru. – What "water parasites"? What even is that? This is so vague that it confuses me more than it helps.
• the last-known short-term diet for these people was overall composed of less fish and more corn. – What is a "last-known short-term diet"?
• However, the terraces were not perfect, as studies of the land show that there were landslides that happened during the construction of Machu Picchu. – Again, this does pose more questions than it answers. Why "construction of Machu Picchu" and not "construction of the terraces"? What has the construction of Machu Picchu to do with imperfectness of the terraces?
• suggesting that they were at least used for funerary rituals,[42] as it was common throughout the Inca Empire to use them for sacrifices and meat. – Lacks context; what do funerary rituals have to do with sacrifices and meat?

Closing note: I fear this article is not there yet, and I have to fail it for now. I so far only looked at a few paragraphs in greater detail, and there are numerous smaller issues and some larger issues. Above I only listed examples, I fear that I would find much more of those if I review more paragraphs. Probably I misunderstood some things, and some of the listed points are minor. I am particularly worried about source-text integrity (the sources discuss what is mentioned in the article, but the article does not seem to precisely reflect it). I hope this helps you to bring the article forwards, and should you need any help or advice, please just drop me a message and I would be happy to help out. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)