Talk:My Block, My Hood, My City

Peer Review - Vllana
Your group did a good job at finding an ample amount of credible and secondary sources. I also think the description and explanation of each section was thorough and clear for ease of readability. Also, great job at linking to sources and highlighting specific key words or concepts. Your page is also well written in accordance to neutrality there wasn't anything that particularly stood out as sounding biased or as advertisement.

However, I would suggest to revise the structure of the sections such as the order of and also to create separate sections for different concepts. Some of the changes I made was to create a new section and heading for Fundraisers and Grants they were all grouped under Programs which are not quite the same concepts. I also rearranged the order of the sections, positioning Programs first following Demographics and the Fundraisers and Grants. I changed the order to better the flow of the page. Additionally, I rephrased the leading sentences at the beginning the third sentence was very short although it could stand on its own but could be more concise if added to the first sentence. I also included a hyperlink to add context to what micro-grants are, considering that not all readers might know the purpose or meaning of micro-grants. Lastly, I deleted a duplicate of a source and changed it to be re-used.

Overall, the page was well written and put together. I would suggest just revising the structure. The structure revision of the sections is also something that could be applied to my own Wikipedia page of The Love Fridge.

Vllana (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Vllana

Peer Review by Bulls 2020
Peer Reviewed: My Block, My Hood, My City

1.     The Wikipedia page does a great job in splitting up the sections so that it is an easy read. I thought it was interesting how they provided all the different Fundraisers and Grants and gave me more information on the history and background that I was not aware of prior. The sources that were used look to be reliable and the writing doesn't seem bias which is good giving off a neutral tone.

2.     I think for this article you should add more to the Demographics section or put another section to go along with it. This would be an improvement because the section seems too small to be by itself and could have more information if it were combined. Another suggestion I have is adding more information to the programs sections to make it longer than a sentence it could give the reader more context on it.

3.     Another thing you could do is add pictures to make people have a better visual representation of what kind of work they do. Also adding an info box could be a quick way people could find the website and get information on the organization without reading into it as much.

4.     Having a section on volunteering might be something we could add to our article for people to know how it works and looking into hyperlinking more of our information could give people more context to what things are.

5.     A change I made was erasing the headquarter section in the info box and left where it was founded because they were both in Chicago, IL. You can add more to the Demographics section to expand on it some more if there is more information out there. The Wikipedia page looks really good so far and with a few tweaks with our suggestions it will be great.

Bulls2020 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by Notaprperson
1. This article does a great job at introducing the organization and their purpose right at the start. The writing is understandable and not too wordy.. I also really like how the History section described the founder's motivation for starting the non-profit, thats great background information. Another thing I thought this article did very well was making clear sections with concise information under it, like in the section Fundraisers and Grants, I like that I can get a feel of what this organization does just by looking at the titles. All sources check out as reliable and varied throughout different news cites, and articles.

2. My first suggestion of improvement is changing the first sentence to say "educational field trips and programs" since most of the work they do is for education I would say the field trips are as well. Another subtle change to make is in the Demographic section where there's a sentence saying "some programs are also available for adults". To this I would incorporate that sentence with the one before it for smoother reading. If we do have more information on what kind of programs there are for kids as well as adults it might be worth seeing if more information could be added under the programs section. Demographic and Program Section seem to be connected, if no other information can be provided maybe grouping them together could work.

3. Most important thing to change to this article I would say would be the structure of the Demographic and Programs sections. This is because I think they could be stronger than they are right now if more information was added or the sections were somehow brought together.

4. I really liked the way everything was cited and and the hyperlinks used.. I should add some more hyperlinks to my own article since everyone might not know what words such as micro-grants are.

5. I changed the structure of the first sentence in the article as well as the structure of the sentences in the demographics section for a better reading flow. Changed the first sentence of the Programs section to say that volunteers are of varied ages. But overall this was a really good article and you guys are doing a great job!

Notaprperson (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Notaprperson