User talk:Aocho032/sandbox

Week 2
Great job this week, Armando! Very cool that you caught so many problems with the Tenerife page. Maybe you can be the one who provides all those sources that are missing? You would be a great person to add to Wikipedia. Also, your answers on your sandbox were very thorough and complete. Thank you for taking the time to write all of that out. My favorite part is at the end. "Be bold, not bald." I would take offense to that! Hah. Alfgarciamora (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions/Peer Reviewing
Andrea's Feedback Andreasvg (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To start off, I want to say it was a great idea to look up articles on Robespierre in different languages on Wiki, especially in French. You've definitely inspired me to do the same for my article! Very cool that you're taking up making a new article on his downfall, I find that really interesting and can't wait to see what you make of it.
 * Regarding restructuring Robespierre's new article: I can relate to the feeling of wanting organize an article's content differently, especially when comparing it to other articles on similar figures. But I've realized that it's important to treat articles as their own and apply the structure and order that you find best-fitting for the kind of life someone like Robespierre lead. Your attention to detail is great, and I agree that the article may need a change in structure, but I would say that the Biography section you've created on your draft for your character's article is a little too extensive. I think sections like "Reign of Terror" and "Downfall" shouldn't be subsections under a section called "Biography". The way I've come to think about this is, that people visit Wikipedia to gather quick knowledge on subjects, and that's why most articles on figures don't have extensive biography sections but instead have sections delineating the person's participation in important historical events.
 * A little compsci terminology that's relevant here is abstraction. I think instead of trying to abstract the sections and label them "Biography" you should go into the already lengthy existing sections and add subsections. Compare Louis XVI's legacy section to Robespierre's and you'll see what I mean!
 * On the references, you made a good point, I do think the references should be broken down. In Louis XVI's article there is a reference list of only bibliography texts, maybe that's something that could be useful on your article.


 * I'm a little late to this but here's my response to you . About the restructuring, I just want it to be a little bit neater. As of now there's no concrete distinction between his biographical information and stuff beyond his life, like his reputation or how he's been seen (or studied) in history, or his bibliography. Actually the article lacks a bibliography altogether. To be honest now that I think about it making a biography section only makes sense if there's content beyond the biography (I guess this is why not that many biographical articles in wikipedia have the life-events collated into a biography section). I still want to fix up the references at least, I think I'm going to focus on that on the main Robespierre Article. It seems like i'm gonna be (mostly) focusing on making the Downfall article and cleaning up the Thermidorian reaction one, I'll try to keep the subsection (and abstraction) bit in mind for those articles. Thank you again, and happy editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aocho032 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)