User talk:Kakazi Kacyira/sandbox

Peer Review by Boyd
Kakazi's contributions are well sourced and follow conventional Wikipedia guidelines. The language is very straightforward and easy to comprehend. I also appreciate that the words that may be biased or incorrect are marked. The paragraph on Anacoana's death follows a chronological and sound structure. I think it is good that the article first discusses the proposed happenings of her death but after, points out that it is unconfirmed and many oddities exist. The draft is very neutral and apart from the phrases that have already been marked, I do not see a reason to change any wording. The section on Anacoana's legacy is also very clearly laid out and accessible. All sentences are sourced and easy to read. In conclusion, I think the draft is a productive and necessary addition to the article.

Dante's Evaluation of "Anacaona Draft"
You do a good job or writing in concise understandable language, I do not find any sentences awkward or too lengthy to read. I like that almost every sentence in the draft is well put together and gets right to the point. I think the wording of this sentence: "Additionally, it is unclear why the Spaniards intermarried with the Taino would let them fall for the trap (Floyd)." is a little confusing. The sentence cuts off from describing the purpose of the Spanish intermarriage with a missing word between "Taino" and "would". Other than that, I found no other awkward grammatical sentences. Every sentence conveys a factual claim from the history of the conflict and is accurately sourced between two sources (Las Casas) and (Floyd). There are no signal phrases in the draft, however I am not sure if it is necessary since this is a historical recount of the incident between the Taino and Columbus's men. The Death section flows well and logically, yet focuses a little more on the event of the attack rather than Anacaona's actual death. The Legacy and Influence section feels a little short and I am not sure where the few sentences added factor into the whole article. I think copy and pasting the current state of the article and bolding your additions in relation to what was already there would be very helpful in understanding the context gaps of the Wikipedia article more clearly. All additions seem to be unbiased and do not contain any words to watch out for, however you do use "Additionally" twice to start a sentence. I do not think any of the language in the {} is biased and I am a little unclear on the idea of "unconfirmed" information and why it is not confirmed. Consider adding blue links to other Wikipedia articles with some of the terms you use in your paragraph to provide greater context of what each unfamiliar term means.

Djschorge (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)