User talk:POLS/sandbox

Terrorism Article: There doesn't seem to be anything that stands out in the article that could be considered bias it all seems to be stated facts. The article also provides links or citations to other sites or Wikipedia pages. The facts taken from the other site and are put on this Wikipedia page do not seem to copy the original information from the previous page it is just a general overview of that topic that doesn't overstep the bounds of plagiarism.Overall the article does a good job on stating the overall facts on terrorism and briefly defining terrorism as best they can. The article also provides other links to further your knowledge or understanding on the topic and so far the links I have clicked have all been reliable. POLS (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism Article: When I clicked on the talk page of this article the people who posted a comment had concerns that they were being vague and that they could further the information on the page because the person who posted that comment had been to the official website of the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism and thought that it had a lot of information worth covering that should be added to the page but they did think that the article was a great first step in introducing people to the topic. When reading the article I thought that it was a great way to introduce someone to the topic but it could go a little further in explaining it and maybe broadening some of the topics thus giving the reading a better overall understanding of the topic and maybe furthering the discovery of new things under this topic to learn about.POLS (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)