The article on sugar skulls was very interesting to read. I noticed that it was a very differnet format from say the art review we had to write for our third essays. There were alot more quotes throughout the review. I would say almost 80 percent of the article was quotes. I also noticed that this particular article wasn't so much as say a typical review where the author talks about how good or bad some art work is. This article revolved around letting people in the city know about the family that visits chicago once a year to make sugar skulls for the day of the dead at the chicago museum of art. I noticed that the say voice of the author was not really present but rather the voice of a viewer was more involved. As a reviewer i think they get a bigger say than an average consumer or viewer. But these piece seemed to be from the stand point if a normal person. I did notice that alot of say research was done to right the article. There was a load of facts all throughout the article revealing things to the reader about the art, artist, and other key points. I would say that this article was very different from the type of review we have to do. As the review really had no input on there opinion, we do not have acsess to interview the artists, and all around it was more of an informative summary than a review.