User talk:Sdesousa/sandbox

Hi Steven, looks good, one small change I thought of is I was thinking that you might say "beginning in 1925" rather than just "in 1925" because it was a going concern. Not sure how much you need to describe COMINCO since I already started, but I am open if you have specific details that are important. and maybe you could connect it to the local conflict resolved in 1924 as to how it was different or similar? Not sure how much sections should be connected to each other though? Fun stuff this assignment, you have to think a whole different way.Sliver9754 (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steven, great start! Along with the efforts made from the parties involved to resolve the dispute before arbitration, I think you could also talk about some of the potential challenges to such efforts. From what I've gathered so far, water pollutant complaints were a relatively newer topic and the original arbitration was about the smoke stacks and sulphur dioxide - did I miss something in the original arbitration about water pollutants? In response to Sylvie, our sections should ideally connect us from one point to another, from one heading to another. This is definitely an interesting assignment; synthesizing information without trying to be biased or form an argument is hard! And visually, making things flow smoothly even though there are going to be definitive breaks in the article - great challenge! --Kelselle (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments guys! --Sdesousa (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven, I have written about the arbitration from 1925 - 1941. Let me know if you think there is too much overlap. Mhills91 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steven, I like what you have written for your part! I think this is pretty much ready to go live, even if you plan on making minor editing and text adjustments this is very solid. I think for when you mentioned the Arbitral Tribunal in your Major Players section you should note that of the three people appointed, one was American, one was Canadian and another was a person from a country neutral on the matter (I think it was Belgium?). I haven't yet seen this in any one else's part. --Kelselle (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that is something that I should include in my section since it pertains more to the actual arbitration Mhills91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think I elaborated in greater detail. My suggestion - and that is all it is - is that you take out "This was far less than the inhabitants had wanted and eventually under the pressure of Washington's State Congressional Delegation, the IJC settlement was rejected. This led to the eventual establishment of the three-person Arbitral Tribunal to finally solve the dispute, which was established in 1935." If anything the last sentence for sure. Perhaps there is more on the damages that were done that lead to arbitration? Having read it again I think we are ok with overlap. Mhills91 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for the comments. Mike I completely agree, I'll take out that last bit and then look into extended damages. --Sdesousa (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey Steven looks good so far, was wondering if it was only the federal governments that were involved or did BC and Washington leaders have a say before-hand? I know that some environmental issues are under provincial jurisdiction. I see that you mention the state in the last section,but still not sure about BC. Also, should there be something about the soil being mineral rich and thus poor conditions for growing crops in the first place, which led to the farmers being called in some literature "smoke farmers"? Do you think that is too inflammatory to use? Just thinking that more than one source talks about it. I like your writing atyle, good grammar, etc.Sliver9754 (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I took all your comments into account and went live, this way we don't all dump our sections at once. --Sdesousa (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]