User talk:Willshinexc/sandbox

Drew's Peer Review of Censorship in Mexico
'''A lead section that is easy to understand

''Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? I believe that Will is not intended to re-write the lead of the article, rather just a subsection. Therefore, this lead review is not entirely relevant. That said, I think that the opening sentence of his contribution is strong.

Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Looking at the lead after the whole article, I think the lead sentence could highlight a little more the main tension of the section. That is, it could suggest the dissimilar forms of censorship at play. For instance, I think the following sentence that you later state could be brought up higher in the paragraph, if not refined to be the lead sentence: "Thus, censorship in the 19th century occurred in many forms dissimilar to those that came before it and was most prominently guided by the constant struggle between journalists and government officials as to what constituted free speech."

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?'' No, I do not think the lead section s unbalance or redundant. The only improvement would be making the addition about the censorship types.

A clear structure

'' Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? '' I really enjoyed the chronological order you took to the section and mildly explaining why you took that approach in your introductory sentence. And given that Wikipedia does not really emphasize conclusions, I don't think that you'll have to tie this material together neatly.

Balanced coverage

''Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Right now the two developed sections are equal in length. The third section is light, but that is because I suspect you will be building it out. The only thing I might recommend is having a section on the modern day censorship because you elude to it in your introduction paragraph.

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?'' I think the article does at time try to draw conclusion, not wholly detrimentally, but it is noticeable. Examples include: - "remain some of Mexico's most controversial issues today." - "By the end of this period a strong precedent was set as to what could and could not be said in colonial Mexico and what objects one could and could not possess." - "Whatever the case, the Holy Offices actions became the dominate mode of censorship in Mexico for around the next century and a half and still had a heavy hand in censoring indigenous iconography."

I think these sentence sit on the boarder of summarizing sentences and conclusion sentences. Rather than adjusting them, just keep in mind the tone creep.

Neutral content

''Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, I do not think I could guess the perspective of the author other than that they probably does not love censorship.

Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No, I couldn't find any normative or suggestive phrases. I think there are a few colloquialism that could be removed, but otherwise, no edits.

Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." In one sentence, the author does draw on "some," saying, "However, some historians have argued this was simply a result of shifting demographics, trials following the groups that the Spanish deemed most dangerous to its political and religious stability.[2]" I think it might be useful here to call out the names of a couple relevant historians, despite the citation, to make the statement less general.

Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. '' I don't think that the article unfairly spends time on the harmful features of censorship. It does mention the violence, but not in explicit detail. One way to counter this would be to investigate more deeply why censorship and information control was necessary. Understanding and stating political utility could make the piece read more neutrally.

Reliable sources''' '' Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? All of the articles seem to be reliable, scholarly secondary sources. This is critical given Wikipedia's preference for expert references.

Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. I do think that the Chuchiak article is cited quite a bit, especially as a second citation option. I ran into this concern too when writing my Wiki contribution. My best piece of advice is to look at the footnotes of the source and see if there are other secondary sources that you can lean on.

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!'' All of the sentences are extremely well cited and the sources seem to be represented accurately. The only sentences without sources seem to be concluding sentences.

'General'

''First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? One thing I think you did well is that you liberally citation. I think almost every sentence you wrote had a citation. Another thing I appreciate was that you linked to other articles in your article. That is something that I am going to do on my Wikipedia page on my next round of edits! In terms of highly descriptive phrases, I appreciated: "In response to the demand for better oversight of the Mexican Inquisition, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was formally extended to the Americas in 1569. However, although the Office now rooted censorship in a formal decree guided by specific guidelines, such censorship was not always consistent in its enforcement or standards throughout the vast period the Mexican Inquisition spanned.[1] " I thought that this statement was robust and particularly informative. On the other hand, I would consider revising "To what extent the Mexican Inquisition held influence over the indigenous populations in New Spain upon the establishment of the Holy Office has long been debated but it seems to be much less than that before its codification in 1569.[6]" I think this sentence could 1) use grammatical improvement 2) use brevity or stronger word choice and 3) just clarify the statement overall. I'm particularly confused by the phrase "it seems to be much less than that before..."

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Other than the change mentioned above, there are a couple of other alterations I would make. First, I obviously would continue to build out the 19th century section, as you seem to be doing. Second, I would make your sentences shorter overall. The length of them kind of drags and particularly for Wikipedia editors, getting to the point is critical. Third, you might consider the paragraph about censorship outside of books in the Holy Office Section. While not too distracting, I do not think mentions of handkerchiefs, for example, is entirely necessary.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I'm not sure if its the most important improvement, but I would continue to build out your source base. I suspect that there is a decent amount of literature on this topic. And I would encourage you to use more different types of sources to make the points you have in the article rather than drawing on the same few repeatedly. Even those that don't fit perfectly, consider adding to further reading!

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!'' As I mentioned before, I really want to incorporate links to other Wikipedia pages as you did! Also, I admired the robustness of your article overall and I want to include a similar level of detail and depth.

Dgoydan21 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Dgoydan21