User talk:Rusty shackleford/sandbox

Looks like you did a great job with your part of the article - a lot of facts, neutral information, everything is to the point. I like how you make it all bullet-points, it makes it all very clear. I would suggest modifying the "interpretations" section since the last part of it is not necessarily an interpretation - you might just make it a separate paragraph maybe, not a bullet-point, since if it's a bullet-point it automatically associates with the interpretations. It just may help a little in perceiving all of it together.

Also, just a side question - those Donald Trump and the US related articles: are you editing them too or adding them to the non-refoulement article? Or is it staying there because it was the thought process before you came to what you have now? Just to know for the future.

Great job with drafting!

AVM SIB (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Response

Thanks for the kind words! I also appreciate the suggested edit to the "Interpretations" section and now see how that could be confusing. I plan to change the title of the section to "Approaches to Interpreting Article 33" for increased clarity. The information in the final paragraph will be needed later in a planned section addressing important violations of non-refoulement and current challenges to it, so I will need to keep it somewhere. Perhaps it could just go in the new section?

The Donald Trump and U.S. policy articles were ones I planned to edit before settling on non-refoulement. Finding new information to add to them was proving extremely difficult, so I had to move on. Also, the Trump article was under intense Wikipedia supervision due to ethics violations from some of the editors, so I did not want to be anywhere near that!

Thanks again! Rusty shackleford (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]