User talk:BenNN577/sandbox

Tia's peer review
I think this article is very well written. Not only does it give a lot of information, but it's written in a very clear and concise way. The only change that I suggest is to cite more throughout the article. Overall, I think it will be a great addition to the real article.

Riven's peer review

 * well written
 * the information provided fit well with the article used

Dan's review
Ben, this is really great work bringing additional context and clarification to a little-understood issue. A few little suggestions for you: Overall, though, good work with a tricky subject -- this will ultimately be a great addition to this article. --Daniel.messier (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "According to several sources, the IJO was more of a shell corporation for Hezbollah’s activities in Lebanon in the early 1980s than it was an active, independent Lebanese Shi’ite militia [2]. And with Hezbollah serving Tehran at the direction of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), American investigators were quick to bring charges against the Islamic Republic of Iran, not only for the events of September 20, 1984, but also for the Embassy and Marine Barrack bombings of 1983." I think we can clarify this to make the chain of connection clearer. Maybe something like: "The IJO was not an independent Lebanese Shi'ite militia, but a shell corporation for Hezbollah's activities in Lebanon. Hezbollah itself was directed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Because of these connections, American investigators [which ones? CIA?] charged Iran for this bombing, along with the Embassy and Marine Barrack bombings of 1983." (This last sentence will need a citation as well.)
 * The remainder of the paragraph that you wrote has information that is clear and relevant, but needs citations.