User talk:Noel.salvador/sandbox

Zachary Bennett's Review of Your Rough Draft

You have several excellent ideas for what to include in your final essay, including the origins of the Zapotecs and archeological finds that relate to this group. There does not appear to be any bias contained within your work, and it excellently explains different eras of Zapotec civilization. However, the overriding problem with your rough draft is that it is too short. For starters, you have only written 232 words of content, and a final draft will probably have to be in close to a thousand words. You do have Joseph Whitecotton's book, which is an excellent source about the subject, but you will need many more if sources you are to write an excellent final draft. Also, there are many statements that could provide excellent insight, but they are underdeveloped. For example, you write that "This period also saw a surge in religious activity within the state leadership of the society," but you do not discuss this subject at all beyond this sentence. If you added details about common Zapotec religious practices and deities, Zapotec religious hierarchy, and what caused the rise in religious activity, then that would be a strong article. You should also be sure to divide your information into distinct and well organized sections, as this makes it easier for readers to discover and process information. A final recommendation would be to add some material to the sections about Zapotec history and language. As those sections both have links to other articles, it is not necessary to add very much extra information, but, as of right now, they are quite small.Zacharyhbennett (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Like Zachary said, I believe you have some great ideas here. However, there is not much here to review. That said, there is plenty of time to add and fix that. The information does not seem specific to a certain section of your topic. You will definitely need sections to better separate your article. All that said, I believe it is good start. I do not see any bias, and most of your article are bare bone facts, which is the point of wikipedia articles. It is informative. My main criticism of your rough draft is its brevity, it makes it hard to give you a meaningful peer review.

˜˜˜Camden McCusker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camden McCusker (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)