Dear reporters,
I really like the streamlined layout, the background video and the non-linear presentation online. Lovely work; you are wonderful.
If the photo remains, I recommend changing this caption to use either "travel ban" or "entry ban"; both phrases are used in the Wikipedia article.
Yes.
The one starkly political message in the Report is the choice of a protest photo from the US for the story about travel. On the nose, but reasonably on topic (with a corrected caption).
In general, I like the spirit and content of this report. A lead-in to the facts putting them in context would be nice; the implied context is "Facts Matter!" However I feel this claim and the report could be even more powerful if it were presented with another half-step of remove. The most unparalleled success of Wikipedia is not that it summarizes topics like "scientific consensus on global warming" — that, one can find elsewhere. It is that you can find thorough coverage of *all* aspects of such important and difficult topics: fledgling + disputed theories, major controversies and factions, and both begrudgingly + enthusiastically accepted conclusions.
My one concern: The highlighted fact about travel is wrong. As far as I can tell it's closer to 1 in 20 people. "International tourism arrivals" passed 1.2B this year, but the average tourist "arrives in another country" 3+ times per year.[1][2] If the publishers find a way to retract this mote of misinfo, I will be duly awed :)
Wikilove, SJ
[1] http://www2.unwto.org/press-release/2017-01-17/sustained-growth-internationa... http://stats.areppim.com/glossaire/ita_def.htm https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/visa-everywhere/documents/visa-global-t...
[2] A quick round of community review (say, of any reputed facts!) and even citations might not hurt, for statements of fact that are going out to a large audience. You have access to plentiful world-class fact checkers, you don't have to limit yourself to those in the office.