User talk:Zeroni95/sandbox

Zeroni95 Peer Review (April 4, 2019)

• I do not believe that Resources and External links will count as part of the 5 sections needed for the art piece, so I recommend looking back onto the wikipedia resources she handed out to see potential sections to add to your piece. Maybe a history of the particular art piece and about the people around the making of the piece would be a good section to add.

• You will need to have more written for this, for you need at least 1000 WORDS ADDED to this article by next week. That is only informational body text and not the titles/resources/etc. To help keep track of the word count I like to use Microsoft word and paste my body text into the document and use the character/word count function at the bottom of the document window.

• Your lead is very sparse and could use some grammar editing. "The Portrait of Sebastián de Morra is a portrait by Diego Velázquez of Sebastián de Morra, a court dwarf and jester at the court of Philip IV of Spain." -We know it's a portrait so you can take out "is a portrait"; instead of "of Sebast..." use "depicts Sebast..." so that you will not need to alter the whole of the sentence. In the next sentence "It was painted in around 1645 and is now in the Prado in Madrid." -Was it painted IN the year 1645 or in the years AROUND 1645? It cannot be both.

• Order seems fine. When you add a history or other subsection, have the sections rank from Top-to-Bottom/Past-to-Present Relevance so that old historic info comes before recent/modern news of the pieces.

• NO PERSONAL VIEWS within the wikipedia page. Observations are made as fact, much like what you did in Composition/Style section. So it would be a good idea to remove the personal view section from the Visual Analysis page, UNLESS within your sources someone says this idea, where then you will cite that and give the reason why he looks decent (which will also need to be cited from the source).

• Remember to keep sections balanced when you add more information. Important/more prevalent sections will be longer than sections that are just a quick informational tidbit. Remember the editing ideas from Week 11's wiki slides "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? 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?"

• Break up super long sentences. If you can break a run-on sentence into two simple sentences with one idea each, do it. It will help the reader to mentally process the new string of information presented. Do not forget to also remember to keep content neutral in stance. Mention both sides of the idea if there are two viewpoints from two different people.

• SOURCE/CITE SENTENCES THAT GIVE SPECIFIC INFO THAT IS NOT YOURS ORIGINALLY. Almost EVERY sentence you may pull will have a source. If you cannot find the source of the original sentence, then it may be a good idea to remove it. For example the sentence in the Visual Analysis about Sebastián de Morra sitting like a marionette, where did that come from? Can you find which source said this? If not then you may have to delete it.

Keep the ideas of the Peer Review questions in mind from now on and I am sure you will have a strong wiki page soon. If needed it would be good to try and get more info on the painting from more sources or the original sources if it helps you. BEST OF LUCK TO YOU!

Rosedalton (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)