User talk:Bonesb10/sandbox

Article Evaluation '''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''' -There are many missing citations. The article is really short with not much substance.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' -The article appears neutral.

'''Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' -Without reading the book I can't tell if there are viewpoints that are under or over-represented.

'''Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?''' -There are many missing citations. These would need to be inputted.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?''' -I find that there could be much more added to the article. For example, the effect this book had in its time and today.

'''Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?''' -The Talk page does not have anything substantial that it adds the article. No one has worked on it since 2008.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?''' -The article is a stub and can be improved.

'''Identify what's missing from the current form of the article. Think back to the skills you learned while critiquing an article. Make notes for improvement in your sandbox.''' -The article is missing the legacy of the book for the Conquista, Inquisition and for modern Latin America. It is also missing various citations. My first step towards fixing this article will be to read multiple sources on the book, its legacy, its context and its argument. I will then use my notes to add to sections that will refer to the book's legacy, context, and argument.

PEER REVIEW FEEDBACK:

Hey Elizabeth, Great job on your research and writing thus far! The article is definitely improving and the additions you have made do provide more context about the importance and reliability of Las Casas' document. There are a few comments and suggestions I have for improving your article.

1) WORDING: Since this is a very controversial piece, trying to present a neutral argument when one side is clearly right or wrong can be challenging. However, from the training that we have taken thus far, I would suggest reviewing some of the words that you use to describe Las Casas and the process by which he made the document. For example, this sentence really stood out to me: "Instead, De Las Casas focused entirely on the suffering caused by the Spanish conquistadors so that the King would address the conquistador’s behavior.[2]" Instead of using the word "entirely," which establishes a tone of frustration and disappointment in Las Casas' attempts, perhaps use a less charged word like "mainly" or "generally" to stray away from alluding to your opinion. Another area where wording might represent your opinion: - "De Las Casas also failed to mention the number of indigenous deaths caused by Old World disease.[2}": Perhaps change "failed" to another word or phrase that still highlights that Las Casas did not achieve a particular goal (e.g., he did not mention).

2) AUDIENCE: As an encyclopedic article, it might be best to not use wording that directly identifies or incorporates the reader into the information you are writing about. For example, this sentence stood out to me: "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies is a book that marks a significant moment in the way we would address world history." The usage of "we" seems awkward in the rest of the reported information, which is written in the third person about Las Casas. Also, who do you mean by "we"? 21st century individuals, students, scholars? Since the inclusive subject is unclear, maybe change or just delete that word to maintain neutrality.

3) SPELLING: There were only minor spelling mistakes, which is understandable since text can be distorted or skewed when transferring it to the real Wikipedia article page. Here are a few spelling errors that caught my attention: - "many critiques argue that facts and figures about the mistreatment": are you saying the scholarly critiques themselves, or the actual scholars (critics )? - "Today, it is well known that Old World diseases caused for a large number of indigenous deaths": I think you mean simply that they "caused", correct? - "De Las Casas has been accused my many scholars about making exaggerated": "my" should be by

4) TONE: This is more of a question, especially since I have not read Las Casas' piece: Are there any positive aspects that you can present about his work in addition to what you already wrote about in the legacy section? There is a substantial amount of your writing that focuses on what Las Casas failed to do or how he used the piece to achieve his own aims. Perhaps introducing some of the positive aspects/effects of his work might reduce that negativity and present a more neutral summary of the book.

All in all, GREAT job and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your work! I am excited to read the final piece in a few weeks! CaseyDuke (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)