Talk:Indochristian Art

Untitled
Hi Amanda! It looks like you’re off to a really strong start. You’ve clearly done a lot of good research and are well versed in the topic at hand. I’d also add that your writing is very clear and precise, and you do a very good job at striking the neutral tone that we’re all aiming for.

I don’t have much to critique at this point, seeing how you seem to have quite a bit to expand upon. My only advice might be to tighten up what you have so you can really focus on description of the art style itself. All of the information you have is very interested and well researched, but I think you might benefit from condensing your discussion of the term and its origins into a paragraph or two and then moving on to discussions of form, implications for culture, etc, because after a while it starts to feel less like a Wikipedia article and more like a literature review on the history of the term Indochristian art. You’ve picked a pretty sweeping topic, so it might be worth reevaluating the depth vs. breadth tradeoff.

Anyway, great work so far, and I’m looking forward to reading the final article! Llculp (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Amanda, the first sentence provides a fairly good summary of indochristian art. However, the article gets a little too detailed shortly after. As someone with little to no knowledge of the subject, I'm a little lost as to who the Spanish Franciscans, Dominicans, and Augustinians are. You could insert links or provide short descriptions of these people. Perhaps you've left this out of your draft, but I'd like to see more coverage of indochristian art. For now, it seems like you're only focusing on terminology, so I'm not sure if you plan to write more about the socioeconomic or political context of the art. A minor note—there is some repetition of the Constantino Reyes-Valerio source. You may want to only include it in the top or bottom part!

On article neutrality: In the "Previous discussion of Indigenous artistic influence", you seem to focus on a limited number of sources. Perhaps you could very briefly justify your rationale behind these sources, or the context for who Chavez, Toussaint and Villa are. If they are art historians, how influential were they? What is the significance of their analysis? How did it frame the way people thought about art.

On the headlines: I'd avoid repeating the phrase "of the term" so your headings are more concise. Eg. "Terminology" for the header, "Indigenous influence", "Origins" and "Criticism" for the sub-headers would suffice. Amandayeoh (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Amandayeoh

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arlarsen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)