User talk:Indiedixon/sandbox

Good article evaluation, Indie! It really shows that you engaged with the article, thought about the material presented, and reflected upon its meaning and value. Moreover, you identify gaps in the material that ought to be addressed. I'm really looking forward to reading your draft article, I'm sure it will be great. Griffyn1987 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of your section of the article is very good at both introducing the topic of FAFT membership and elaborating on what that membership means. This makes your draft much more straightforward and easy to understand than what is present in the published article. However, the source you cited for this section states that there are currently 38 member countries of FAFT, rather than 36 as you have stated was the case in 2018. It seems that this may be to contextualize the first sentence of the "Observers of FATF" section which, in my opinion, is not needed. I also noticed two grammatical errors in your draft. The first is in the opening section where there is an unnecessary comma after the 'and' which follows "counter-measures" and a semi-colon. The second is in the second sentence of the paragraph under the "Associate Members of FAFT" heading where the word questionnaire should be plural. The last section is very strong in that it states outright what the organizations listed are and what they do. I think that the Associate Members section would be improved by reflecting the same format. As it is, this section does not make it clear that the associates are organizations because prior to this the only acting subjects you had written of were either member nations or FAFT as a whole. As a result, the list and the preceding text appear dissonant. Your draft section makes effective use of the two official sources. While you might choose to incorporate other sources, it doesn't seem strictly necessary. Good work overall. Julian Crant (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Julian Crant

Thank you for your feedback Julian, it was very helpful. The Associate Members section is not expanded as much as the section prior because unfortunately, there is very little information regarding it. I appreciate that you find the points that I did include to be strong because I was feeling like there was very little information in all. I will fix the error you have outlined and also include Negative and Positive impacts of FATF later as I improve my draft. This is so I can show how FATF has helped to control the spending towards terrorism in these countries and also globally. It will also outline how the rules and regulations of FATF have some way or somehow limited the use of legal monies in these countries. My redundancy of some titles in the article is to just make sure that the point that I am putting across is clear and concise so readers are not confused or lost while reading my work. Thank you again for your input Julian it has helped me shape the route I want to take with my article! Indiedixon (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)