User talk:Evy703/sandbox

I am peer reviewing your article. It is very well written, I like how organized it is; how each heading flows into each other making it easy to read and take in the information. All the references are great as well; they are lengthy and very in-depth. The only issue I have is that the examples of working groups are a little short and leave me wanting a better explanation. Examples of sub-headings that are too short are "Countering the Financing of Terrorism" and "Preventing Violent Extremism and Conditions Conducive to the Spread of Terrorism". I think these could be lengthened by adding an example of how the CTITF actually stopped these acts in the past. Great work so far, I hope you take my recommendations into consideration! JohnFarrell5 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 3/3/18

Hey folks! My name is Holly and I am reviewing your article today! Hopefully my comments will be helpful :)

Firstly, WOW this article has been expanded so much from the original stub, so great job!!
It is super well-written-- The formatting and grammar look very professional. I also like how you have subdivided so many sections because it, not only, breaks up all the text you have, but it also makes it more accessible for the reader (which is super important for conveying hard academic topics)
Throughout, there are a few careless grammar mistakes that should be corrected in the next draft-- Random capitalization, spaces where there shouldn't be, etc.
I feel that you're likely going to do this anyways, but I think it would look stylistically better if you removed the numbering from the "working groups" section.
Overall, great article! Thanks for making it so easy to review :)

Hicfox (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this article is really well written. The headings are labeled appropriately and everything seems well explained. I'm sure minor grammar mistakes and organization will be corrected in the final draft. The paragraphs are clear and concise without being too long and drawn out. Draft is very well done and seems like a professional Wikipedia article.Jordan.bartlett (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]