User talk:Mhills91/sandbox

Notes to reviewers

At the moment I have just dumped the writing on the sandbox. Please don't worry about format for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.216.123 (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

team comments

hi mike I think you are on the right track, but you should check the dates involved. It is my understanding that the dispute, which Steven is covering, took place between 1927 and 1935, and that arbitration followed. your intro section says you will cover 1920 to 1941, so you should check this and change it. Has steven put more in his sandbox? the original arbitration was local only, and I covered it in my historical context section. I am not sure of all the details of the arbitration, but you should definitely go into detail with who was involved, lawyers, government bodies, media portrayals on both sides if there are enough to make a neutral statement. so far we have had some help from a wikipedian, adding a photo, links and doing some edits, hopefully we can continue to get supportive help like this. good luck with the rest of your text. Sliver9754 (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I like this as a good starter! This passage shows various things about the arbitration, including its complexities even though you've carefully made it clear what's going on. I've adjusted some grammatical, mechanical errors I found. --Kelselle (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, looks good but there is definite overlap between our two sections. I cover the IJC, I tried to avoid saying anything about the Arbitration so that could be left to you. Not sure how you want to split this up. --Sdesousa (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I made some edits, my concern was some sentence order, word choice, etc. I commented in text that I think you should include Metzger didn't write anything down because that was key to the failure of the side to present adequate arguments and it was mentioned more than once. You need to add citations too, but good work so far. I agree with Steven about the overlap, we will have an easier time addressing that once all the text is on one page. hope my changes were not too annoying. Sliver9754 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will cite etc once it has been edited. There are a couple places where more information is necessary. Mhills91 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I bolded a couple of comments, one I had made earlier which you didn't change. I am not sure about the last sentence, it doesn't seem as neutral as wikipedia might want. You eliminated Metzger, which I thought was also key to the American side losing, as it states in the literature at any rate. Or did he move to another section? getting close tho! thanks!Sliver9754 (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you made some edits, do you want to move to the live page?Sliver9754 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]