Talk:GoodKids MadCity Englewood

Peer Review Ajada

What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I really enjoyed how the authors made the article sound. It sounded very professional and nothing I read sounded anything like storytelling. This group really did a great job writing up all the facts and having the timeline very accurate too.

Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way? Each body paragraph was strictly concise and each had a reference with it as well. The article is brief but very comprehensive.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? There are sentences that I brought up that do not have to be in the article and could use some rewording. Consider expanding on the acronym "GKMC-E" for clarity, especially if it's not widely recognized. This sentence "During the 2023 Chicago mayoral election, the group hosted a town hall meeting and 5 candidates showed up to speak." I feel like this is pretty unnecessary and randomly placed. Another thing to change could be "GKMC-E is a leaderless organization: however, activist Kofi Ademola, who is 38 years old, serves as their adult mentor. All decisions are made democratically."

Why would those changes be an improvement? Starting with the acronym at the very beginning of a paragraph might be confusing. The election is not even talked about later on in the article. First it is stated that they are a leaderless organization but then states that there is a mentor. Maybe just mention that this organization is led by mentors vs saying it is a leaderless organization.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? " GKMC-E has weekly meetings where they discuss events and develop ways they can give free, safe recreation to youth in Englewood" When saying this sentence I think it would be beneficial to add what day that this organization actually meets for these meetings. Ankiiaj (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Zhuorao Li (Raven)

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I think they did great job in describing the activities of the project and the people involved in the project and they were very specific and concise. What impresses me is the recent work section, the clear timeline, and each timeline has information that allows people to quickly understand the key content. The project is to help youth affected by violent crime.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement？ 1) The first change I would suggest is the "Introduction" part. "GKMC-E organizes youth engagement events, community service projects, and conducts workforce development programs." I think this sentence can be confused and they may want to change it to more specific, such as adding the mission and what kind of community service/activities/support to the introduction. 2) For the "History" section, the sentence "During the 2023 Chicago mayoral election, the group hosted a town hall meeting and 5 candidates showed up to speak." might need to move to another section because it seems random under the context. 3) In the introduction part, they mentioned "conducts workforce development programs," but there is no following information related to "workforce." They may want to add more information related to this or change this phrase.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think the most important thing is to check the correlation between contexts to decide if they need to delete information or add more details.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I really love how they did in the Recent Work section. I think we could apply their model to deliver the Recent Work section to make it more specific and concise.

Zhuorao Li (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Erick Bellido

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

What the article did well was find articles and cite them on the page. It shows they have secondary sources supporting their information. It is also short, simple, and straight to the point, no extra wording.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

A few changes I would make would be to add a date to the protest that is under partnerships so the reader can know when it took place and could read on it. Also, check and see that the sources are aligned with the previous statement. One talks about the police budget, but the citation says otherwise.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Double check on the references are related to the previous statements that are made.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

Adding references and citing ones sources on the article. It shows not only proof but as well as it provides information so any reader can look more into the article and read about any other secondary sources. Also try to limit and be as neutral as possible. Ebelli2 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Brian Chan

What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?

I am impressed by the depth of research; nearly every sentence has a relevant citation.

Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

The entire article makes clear statements, but I thought the partnerships section was excellently done.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?

501(c)(3) nonprofit organization

I would hyperlink this to the relevant wikipedia article

On Halloween in 2022, a curfew was implemented on the City’s youth so that they could not be out past 10pm.

I would phrase it as “On Halloween in 2022, a 10 pm curfew was implemented for Chicago’s minors.” For brevity and clarity.

During the 2023 Chicago mayoral election, the group hosted a town hall meeting and 5 candidates showed up to speak.

If possible I would suggest you guys add what matters were discussed.

GKMC-E is a leaderless organization: however, activist Kofi Ademola, who is 38 years old, serves as their adult mentor. All decisions are made democratically.

Nothing overtly wrong here, reads a bit peculiar but only edit that I would suggest is to remove Ademola’s age

Why would those changes be an improvement?

The changes would be minor alterations for changes for conciseness and/or clarity.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I don’t think there are any major changes that are necessary. The article is well written and cited throughout, I would again suggest minor stylistic changes to remove the author's voice and for clarification.

Bchan29 (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Kayla Barnet

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

1. This article is clear, neutral, and concise. I honestly felt like this could read as a published Wiki article, with the exception of a few minor changes. "In the wake of" was a good phrase when discussing the political event that spurred the founding of this nonprofit. The Partnerships section stood out to me because it was very well researched.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

2. You may potentially want to expand on it being a "leaderless" organization, as that is a relatively new structure and may need clarification.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

3. Just minor tweaks here and there. I honestly don't feel like I have too much to direct them on because this feels like a strong draft.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

4. My group is also doing a nonprofit organization, and we are now adding a Partnerships and Recent Work section to our article because of this one. They also hyperlinked many words or phrases to their main pages, something we had barely done and applied to our article after reviewing this one. Kbarn8 (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Alyssa Bernardino

1. I liked how you all hyperlinked many things; it makes the reader be able to get context on what you're talking about. I also liked how clear and easy to read this article was. I enjoyed how I could tell much research was put into this and how it was summarized in detail, but not in a wordy way.
2. I think that maybe you could expand on how decisions are made democratically, but you would have to be careful in keeping it neutral and not sounding like an advertisement for GKMC-E. Perhaps you could also expand on their intention and the "why" on changing their name if they were given funding. I think that you could also expand on what exactly "free and safe recreation" is in context to the organization.
3. I think this article reads very well already; maybe just some minor changes and elaboration, but other than that, I think it's a solid article.
4. Like I said perviously, I like how you hyperlinked many things in regards to your organization and their involvement with others. I think that is something my group can do too, granted, we don't have as much to hyperlink as of right now. As Kayla said, we were inspired by your article to add a Partnerships and Recent Work section to our article as well.

Issaomari (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)