Talk:Codex Xolotl

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jspringwood19. Peer reviewers: Gorditagirl21, Sicarex.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Planned changes

I am a student in a class covering Colonial Latin America in college. My plans are to made some additions to this article that I think will be relevant and important. The sources listed below are the sources I intend to use. I will be adding new content that covers the historical significance of the Codex Xolotl and the scholarly debated that exist regarding how the object should be interpreted for material culture.

Calnek, Edward E. "The Historical Validity of the Codex Xolotl." American Antiquity 38, no. 4 (1973): 423-27. doi:10.2307/279147.

Charlton, Thomas H. "Texcoco Region Archaeology and the Codex Xolotl." American Antiquity 38, no. 4 (1973): 412-23. doi:10.2307/279146.

Michels, Joseph W. American Journal of Archaeology 77, no. 1 (1973): 117-18. doi:10.2307/503272.

Offner, Jerome A. "Ixtlilxochitl’s ethnographic encounter: Understanding the Codex Xolotl and Its Dependent Alphabetic Texts." In Fernando De Alva Ixtlilxochitl and His Legacy, edited by Brokaw Galen and Lee Jongsoo, 77-121.

       University of Arizona Press, 2016. http://0-www.jstor.org.dewey2.library.denison.edu/stable/j.ctt19zbzgh.5.	

Pueblos Originarios. "Códice Xolotl." http://pueblosoriginarios.com/norte/suroeste/chichimeca/xolotl.html

Schwaller, John F. The Hispanic American Historical Review 77, no. 2 (1997): 296-97. doi:10.2307/2516916.

Jspringwood19 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I like how you added a section for historical significance and debate regarding the Codex as it helps place it in a historical and archaeological context. One potential issue is that you mention an ongoing debate around the number of writers involved in the text's creation but this is not under the "controversy" sub-heading. It just seems as though that sentence, possibly with some added details, would fit better under the controversy section. Sicarex (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think your information is good and relevant to the article, but I do feel you could have made the paragraphs longer and more elaboration of the information you added. The paragraphs you added seem almost young and undeveloped, but have lots of potentials. With that being said, the article is neutral and does provide good information to the general public. I really wish there was more information added; one way could have the controversy be its own heading and give a bit more information on why exactly and maybe some prominent people that are on the different sides. Overall, your addition was needed to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorditagirl21 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)