User talk:Caileer/sandbox

Terrorism article:

This article is well written and uses citations properly. The Author and editors have done a great job at staying on topic, while going into extensive detail. Some of the information however could be separated off into a new article on specific topics of terrorism to make the article shorter to read. The article is quite long for a wikipedia article that is summarizing and broadly explaining terrorism. The authors could add a little more detail to the history. Maybe adding more information on Alexander the 2nd and his assassination being the first recorded act of terrorism in the 19th century. How ever they might want to let that be covered in a separate article, that is solely based on that event. Just so the article is on topic at all times. Caileer (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Agency article
This is a very well written article with extensive detail on the agency. It is very helpful to have an article with separate sections for history and goals. This will make a good article for research and or paper writing. Some of the sources are vague, however there are multiple that are great for further research on the subject. You can tell this article has been watched and edited because of the thoughtful critiques and additions that have been made by multiple authors. The agency's website has a lot of good information, however maybe they could do more research on the subject with first person accounts or memoirs. The detail on this subject is pretty vague. however most government agencies don't allow that much information to be circulated so it is understandable. Caileer (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)