User talk:Kelselle/sandbox

Hi Kelsey,
I really liked your quotes and your ideas, I am sure this will be a great section. You were unsure about whether including current operating standards was historic enough, I think maybe if you can find the old standards to compare them to that would certainly be historic and definitely interesting to know. I wonder if they are published anywhere? The Interior commented to Tina that he had recently visited Teck cominco and that they had an archive, the new improved standards might be something they are proud of, but maybe there were no such standards before. Food for thought. See you tomorrow
Sliver9754 (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sylvie! I like your suggestion of doing a compare and contrast of operating standards; do you think it would be more effective to do a paragraph-approach or something more visual, like a table? That's an interesting point about the old operating standards, I have so far not come across anything that goes into detail about what they are, but some sources do make reference to them. I'll have another look later. Thanks for lending me Bratspies! --Kelselle (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kelsey, I like your new outline. I think doing the comparison will keep it historical, and maybe if you can compile data a table would be worth doing to show changes if there was more than one. i know that the government didn't impose standards of emissions after the first arbitration in 1925, but maybe after the 1941 arbitration, and especially as technology improved there would have been lower emissions IF the outputs didn't increase at the same time due to "improved" processing methods.Sliver9754 (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at it when I get home tonight, but so far it looks good. I know there were advancements in the chemical recovery field that may have happened during the arbitration (which date it is escapes me at the moment). Sylvie is right about the standards not being imposed. Karin questions how much of a precedence the dispute can have due to the intricate nature of international environmental politics - the title of the article is "Re-reading Trail Smelter" - KarinMhills91 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kelsey. Your content is good, although my biggest concern are the long quotes and some minor repetition. I made some changes to your text where there was some passive voice or wordiness, but the sentence I put in italics didn't make sense as a sentence to me, could you clarify? And in the next paragraph of the first section there is a sentence that is quote only. I know it can be hard to paraphrase, but I know that is what is preferred in Wikipedia, partly for copyright but also for clearer and simpler language for the audience. I am happy to look at this again if you do some editing. Sorry if my edits were annoying, I just was trying to think of the easiest way to fix things and it was easier than making several comments and going back and forth. You have a number of good points, especially about precedent on trans-state issues being used because there was no international one to rely on. I was also wondering if lake roosevelt should be called legacy since we are switching to modern conflict? I think we need to define clearly the break between the initial dispute and the current one. hope this helps. Sliver9754 (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kelsey, section looks really good, I especially like the Lake Roosevelt section, very interesting. I do agree with Sylvie, some of the content is quite wordy for Wikipedia standards, and maybe avoid quotes. Other than that, the content looks good --Sdesousa (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kelsey. I made some more changes, I wasn't sure of what you meant at times, especially the last sentence where I added an in-text comment. Please check to make sure my changes reflect what you were saying. I hope I didn't do too much.

thanks!Sliver9754 (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kelsey, it is much clearer now. I made some minor changes. One thing we need to check is the convention about periods going before or after a quote, I am not sure what is the norm in wikipedia, but in my piece I did periods before because that is the convention for chicago, and where possible the reference is at the end of the sentence. Can anyone else weigh in on this? Otherwise I think the piece is ready to go. Anyone else have an opinion? Sliver9754 (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sylvie, I usually write periods after a quote to signal a stop but I'm more than willing to change this to standardize the grammatical conventions of the rest of the article. --Kelselle (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)