User talk:Andreasvg/sandbox

Prof Garcia's Comments

Week 2

Great job this week, Andrea! I had never heard of Amouage before, but now I have, hah. Your answers in your sandbox were nice, but please add more to your future responses. You were getting into some really interesting insights right when you stopped writing. Don't be afraid to write more! Alfgarciamora (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Week 5

@Andreasvg: Amazing job for this week, Andrea! I'm so glad that you were able to find points of omissions where you could add stuff of substance. You have a hard task in comparison to others since there is already so much on the Wikipedia page. But I have full faith in you. Alfgarciamora (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Reviews/Suggestions

Christian Gonzalez Suggestions
In your talk page you mention that you mainly hope to contribute to three different aspects of King Louis XVI's reign: "his motivations... legacy and overall significance of his short, untimely reign." You say as well that you'd like to focus on his time as a constitutional monarch because the Wikipedia article seems to be lacking information of that time period. Finally, you say you might also add info to the Edict of Versailles. Here are my thoughts, in order, on all of this:

·On his legacy and significance: I think it will be easy to find information on this topic. I imagine that people on the left and right of the political spectrum will disagree on how to interpret Louis XVI; this gives you plenty to cite as you can present the arguments of both sides. You could have different sections of the article in which you cite people who view him positively juxtaposed with those who are critical of the man.

·On the motivations for his actions: I'd be careful with this one. Judging the motivations of important historical figures is usually a topic of intense scholarly debate. (Just look, for instance, at the thousands of books published attempting to interpret Abraham Lincoln's attitudes toward slavery and secession.) You'd therefore have to do a tremendous amount of reading to fairly grasp the historical consensus on Louis XVI, if such a consensus exists; if a debate exists about his motivations, you'd have to thoroughly review both sides. Either way you'll surely encounter many authors to cite so as to make the article comprehensive.

·On his time as a constitutional monarch: You mention that you hope to provide context for Louis' actions, which would be excellent for this part of your article. You can probably use what we've learned in class to explain what Louis was up against: radical Jacobins bent on doing away with all remnants of the Ancient regime, Feuillants somewhat willing to cooperate with the Left, crises in Saint-Domingue and Paris, intrigue from foreign countries into France. Surely Louis had much to contend with, and handling a nation in such times must've been extremely difficult.

·On the Edict: Given that Louis was so important and that there are so many sources which write about him, you should have enough information. Perhaps you can sprinkle some things on to the article about the Edict, but I suspect the King's article will keep you sufficiently busy.

·On the existing article: I haven't read the whole thing, but I think you can improve the lead section. It hardly has any citations, and it seems some crucial information about Louis is missing from it. I hope this helps!

Responding to Suggestions
@Chrisgonz321: I've told you before and I'll tell you again for Garcia's verification! Haha. This was truly helpful and you really gave me important warnings I'll heed to as I expand on this article. I've already found a lot of different writers who've held different opinions about Louis XVI and I think it might just add significant interest to his article! (I won't lie, I may have been mostly reading writers who've regarded him positively, but I'll continue reading). Judging his motives is definitely something I'll handle carefully or make it the smaller focus of my editing, since it really is a sensitive topic. Overall, your suggestions were honest and encouraging and I will most definitely be keeping them in mind. Andreasvg (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)