User:Jjpandy/sandbox

User:Catherinelegge/sandbox

Response to Peer Review
Firstly, i would like to express my gratitude for the noticed improvements my group and myself have made to the original article. In relation to the comment concerning intergovernmental organizations, there are many. These organizations range from the United Nations to The World Trade Organization. We will be sure to include this addition in our future edits. When we say “ integrity” we simply mean the morals, values, or principles of the financial system. Wikipedia also has an article about the financial system that we could surely include for additional information. We actually did not mention anything about the blacklisted countries. Mainly because the issue of blacklisting is one that is very complex and we did not want to take away from our main goal. However, Wikipedia does have an article entitled “ FATF blacklist”. That article should answer any questions about evaluations and give evidence about reports. I found my peer review to be very helpful and i’ll be sure to make the needed adjustment.

Peer Review- Terrorism financing
The introduction was strong and the added definitions was a good addition. However, i do believe the audience would benefit from examples of countries with anti-money and terror financing laws. I think it was important to emphasize the difference between money laundering and terrorist financing. Other examples of therriots organizations besides the United States was also a good addition. Wikipedia marked the article as being biased and i agree. Though the suspicious activity is a good edition and very informative, it needs more diversity. All the focus is on the United States. I would like to read more about what other countries consider suspicious. Especially because determining whether  such activity or a particular act is related to terrorism or to organized crime. It is a complex situation that could use more information. After all, the topic is general. That section also needs some citations. Without the citations, it does not quite look like original work. Perhaps some more paraphrasing would help. Wikipedia has already detected where additional citations should be.They also marked the article as being vague. I must disagree with it being vague. Some aspects could use a bit more detail ( which i have mentioned before).Due to the audience being so broad, it is important to relate to them. This article shows much more than the general idea of terrorist financing. Overall the main issue in this article is the lack of diversity. Other than that, this article is substantial.

Content
All information present in the article was of importance. As a result of the placement of information, there were no distractions. However, the rules of modern diplomacy was out of date. Data after the year 1922 would have been appreciated. There was also missing information regarding the history of diplomacy in Asia and West Asia.

Tone
The article is indeed neutral. There were no claims that appeared heavily biased toward a particular position. Claims were diverse and well assessed. Viewpoints were neither overrepresented, or underrepresented.

What others are talking about?
There is discussion about the definition of diplomacy. Users also discussed the addition of more information in areas examining cultural and non- western diplomacy. One talk discussion suggested the page add more information regarding diplomatic expulsions. Other talks debated the legitimacy of citations as well as misspelled words and the sequence in which information was presented.

The Article is rated C class and used in three WikiProjects : WikiProject International relations / law,WikiProject Politics,Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital

In class, we briefly discussed diplomacy when we spoke about sovereignty. The differenced compared to Wikipedia, is that we did not go as in debt because our focus wasn't exactly on diplomacy.