Talk:Luis Solano

From SI410
Jump to: navigation, search


The length is approximately 825 words rather than 3000 words, which I believe is okay for the first draft. Please just remember to keep in mind the minimum word count (~2900) for the final draft.


The topic of this article is very interesting and I would love to read more, however, the structure is lacking at many different points right now making it difficult to understand. To start with the first major component, “(1) an opening paragraph that summarizes the issue,” I am unsure where the opening paragraph is. The author includes a couple sentences in a gray box at the top that introduces the idea of how “the blockchain world” is gaining traction currently. I am led to believe that this may be the opening paragraph, but the formatting is currently not following Wikipedia standards. In the next draft, the author should include clear headlines and an index table, which is automatically created by the Wikipedia editing tools. Please look at the examples found on the project description for formatting help. Regarding the second component, “(2) the body of the article in one or more sections,” currently there is one section so the author does achieve this. As mentioned before though, labeling sections is extremely useful. Finally, in response to the last component, “3) statements are backed up by references to reliable sources,” there are no sources included. This is extremely important. Please refer to the project description on Canvas for proper methods for including references and linking articles. All portions of the piece that are not common knowledge should be referenced to a scholarly or reputable source.


The author is very direct about potential ethical issues that have come to fruition because of blockchain technology and NFTs. A few of these key sentences include the following: “Giving an unfair advantage to those who do not have access to such funds, only the rich will continue to get benefits to potentially get more rich”; “On top of this, it’s hard for people that have recently been introduced to this technology to differentiate legit projects from scammers.”; “Overall, NFTs bring the potential problem of marginalizing certain demographics, communities, and also have a barrier and gap to entry.” I appreciate how the author pointed out a few different, specific concerns and then summarized them together in one sentence. In order to improve the clarity of the article though, I would suggest explaining more about what blockchain technology IS prior to introducing the ethical concerns. In addition, to increase reader understanding (and reach word count), the author can be more descriptive about the ethical concerns. What else do they impact? Are there specific case studies that are important and would help paint a picture for the average reader (e.g. I love the example about Bitcoin)? These are all things to take into consideration.

Objective Reporting (Neutral point of view)

While the author is objective for the most part, I believe that by improving labels and separating paragraphs, this would increase clarity. The ethical concerns are currently sprinkled throughout the main section, which could confuse the reader and lead them to believe that they are the “end all, be all” whereas if they are structured into their own section labeled “Ethical Consideration,” the reader will have increased clarity. In addition, please refrain from using slang such as “the thing is.” This sounds more like someone speaking in conversation rather than a scholarly source, which could lead the reader astray. Again though, I appreciate the objective clarifications such as, “The resources for people to learn about such technology and markets are still very relatively scarce.” This is a very neutral point of view.