Talk:Citizens for Fire Safety

Peer Review
- Overall, this article was pretty clear on its topic and I appreciate the neutrality of the content. I also like the investigation and exposure paragraph since I found it most interesting of all. - However, I would change some of the sentence phrasing in the first and second paragraph because I had to go back and reread a couple of sentences. I was able to understand what was being said, but I believe it could be even more clear and concise for the readers who may not exactly understand what you want to portray. - Besides the sentence phrasing, I do not really see anything else that could be improved. I will say that it is important to make sure that the timeline of your content is organize correctly as well. - I did notice that there were a couple of quotations from the cited articles. Before, I was curious about whether or not we were allowed to do so, but now I try to use this for my article too.

Niara.Hol (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
The article has a good sense of sticking to factual information and staying neutral. The information is all cohesive and adds to the overall article. The information is strong but the formatting of the article looks like it could better. An addition of more sections/headers would help make it look more organized and less essay like. This is probably the most impactful change that I can think of. A smaller change I would make is in the introduction, it mentions how it was founded in 2007, and then only at the end does it mention that it closed 5 years later. I think mentioning it earlier in the paragraph would be beneficial. Overall, the article is very neutral and straight to the point. Djasin (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
The references are pretty good. About half of them are from/by the Tribune, which itself is a good source. Good idea to separate the investigation from the history, as the investigation itself is an important topic, and the one thing that brought down the front group. Some changes that could be made is putting the part about the mattresses into the investigation section, as the Tribune is still mentioned in that section. Or maybe turn the "Testing Mattresses" section into the section about the aftermath of the investigation and the subsequent closing of the group. Another minor fix that can be made is in the "Investigation and Exposure" section; the last sentence of the section can be moved to the beginning of the first paragraph, as that last sentence sounds more like a summary. Then from that summary sentence the rest can act as details that branch out from it. Another thing is that some words, phrases, and titles (like the Chicago Tribune) should be linked to their own Wikipedia articles. The most important thing the authors can do is edit the language to be more neutral. One thing that I can apply to my own editing of our Wikipedia article is to be more detailed in the "who, what, when, where, why". The authors of this page do a good job of saying who was involved, at which times did events happen, who spoke, etc.

Catbiscuits (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
The article is straight to the point and factual which is great! It also has citations from sources that are not taken from their own website. A change that might be helpful is changing how some of the paragraphs start out. Instead of saying "In (year)" try incorporating the year somewhere else in the paragraph if you can. Another thing that can be added is maybe a picture of their logo or headquarters, one that follows Wikipedia's copyright rules. The section on exposure is a section that could be applicable in my group's own article, as it focuses on news articles that reported on them specifically. This is something that could also go into the Howard Brown Health page. Aliu43 (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)