for those who wish to write a historical account, one must be aware of faults in the way local history is sometimes written. what i would cite, in no particular order, are examples of these shortcomings. one is that the presentation of the subject matter is disorganized and confusing. most good historical writing presents data coherently and chronologically so that the reader gets a sense of change and causality. another is a rigid conformity to the periodization of national history, (e.g., the Spanish period, the revolutionary period, the American period, etc.) even if not applicable. many local events, particularly in the social and cultural developments have their own ebb and flow which is distinct from those of the national political events and the local historian must be aware of this. A third shortcoming is the indiscriminate presentation of facts based, perhaps, on the erroneous belief that all the data gathered including the most trivial must not go to waste. but by putting in everything, including the proverbial kitchen sink, the narrative would lose its focus and the point it would like to convey. a fourth is too much emphasis on local celebrities and personalities who may appear important but actually are not. the local historian should be able to justify why a particular person was significant to the history of the place and not simply because that person was the longest-serving mayor or councilor. a fifth shortcoming is the tendency of some local historians to slant their narrative or account to please powerful families or portray a national personality in the most favorable way in the hope,