User talk:Billiam.blanco/sandbox

Hey Billy, Tim here.

It is nice to see something non-scientific. I wish I thought of expanding my horizons more myself.

The changes you made were all largely worthwhile to add. I think you expanded the value of the article tremendously considering how short it was at points. I also want to extend to you a thumbs up or two for staying so unbiased. With all the added details you presented a clear and open depiction of the conflict without making either side out to be evil which I know can be a problem with other Wikipedia articles dealing with these types of events in history. You greatly expanded the conflict section, Mexican response section, and the resolution sections of the article.

I question some of your structural changes. You removed all the subsections of the conflict. I'm not saying that was the wrong thing to do. And you are the authority figure with knowing whether those sections need separate sections or can be all clumped together. I just think you should make sure you're confident in a decision like that. And for another point, you again would know more than me, but is their enough information or things to write about to add a "Guatemalan Response" section. I like my symmetry but only you know if the topic warrants adding anything. I do know that the article mentions Guatemalan responses but they're fewer, in less detail, and scattered through the resolution and aftermath sections.

There are some spelling mistakes, and awkward phrasing. I suggest reading what you wrote out loud if you are having trouble finding what I am referring to. That's what I do and it always seems to work. You largely did a very good job though with spellings and phrasings. There were just a couple of instances that could use a once over.

Hey Billy, it's Conor.

It's nice that I'm able to read/speak Spanish, first of all! It made comparing the Spanish version with the current English version a lot easier, and I have to say you've done a great job at filling in the gaps left in the English version. I exceptionally like the infobox and your other use of wiki formatting - it made reading the content a lot easier and more interesting; I didn't have to sift through walls of text.

I do also like how you combined the conflict sections into a narrative like in the Spanish version; it's easier to read that way and it reads like a story rather than a segmented list of events. One thing I would recommend is a bit more exposition on what exactly Operation Drake was; in the Spanish version, an entire section is dedicated to it. Like Tim, I think that a Guatemalan response section would make sense; I think there's enough info in the Spanish article to make one. If not that, it would be really cool to have a more segmented Mexican vs. Guatemalan response section where you can really contrast the two responses rather than having that read like a narrative (because the responses by both governments are completely disparate, unlike the narrative of the conflict.)

As far as spelling and grammar are concerned, I think the article just needs another once-over before the final version. However, all in all, I think it's great. Conorao (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)