Talk:One Million Degrees

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tfpvam, Nwm28, Ja00brien, JM1922, ImmaniFaith. Peer reviewers: CUBSGRL, Rachelernst88, Achicago88, Alex ozo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

== Peer Review ==


 * For the most part, this article maintains a good professional tone throughout. There are some spots that can sound more professional in writing. Overall, I like the use of many wiki-links. The article's organization is easy to follow, and has an interesting topic.


 * The lead is well written and easy to understand. However, some people may find it difficult to follow as there are a lot of commas in the long sentence of the lead section.


 * The structure is very clear with bold headings above each section. The template of the upper right part of the page looks good.


 * Overall, the article could use a little more balance with more length in the "Programs" and "Partnerships" section. The organization is all about the programs that they offer, so more detail could be needed. Also, there is only one example of a partnership with the organization. More information is needed to represent all sections of the article.
 * The content of this article remains neutral throughout. This is one of the article's strong point. The sources are reliable and follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are many sources of news articles which all link well to the original sources.


 * The weak parts of this article are the grammar and punctuation errors. Specifically, the history portion of this article may be difficult to read for some because of its run-ons.


 * Overall, this article is a good start. Some small changes would turn this into a great article. It already has most of what it needs. Just a little more information and critique of grammar and punctuation.

Rachelernst88 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This article has a good tone overall, but in some spots you could sense a change of voice. There were a lot of wiki links to good and credible sources which helped the article remain professional and factual. The lead is straight and to the point but the grammar in it to me seems a little run on. I thought the structure of the article was ver nicely laid out and easy to follow with a very nice template that made it even easier. The article could use a little bit more balance, some paragraphs and sections were longer than others, so I would suggest adding some more information to bulk up those lacking sections. This article is for sure very neutral which I think helps it flow and give the credibility where due. All the sources I looked at were reliable and they were all linked properly thru out the article giving it a very factual and professional feel. I noticed a lot of grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes (lots of commas). Easy fix tho! I think after cleaning up the commas and the run on sentences scattered thru out the page it will help the article become stronger. I would also add some more information into those lacking sections. Overall I think this was a great start to an article and only minor changes will make it better.

CUBSGRL (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think your groups is off to a good start with your article. Your lead does a great job of getting straight to the point about what the nonprofit is, their location, and overall goals are. However, it reads odd. I think it would be beneficial for you guys to end the second sentence at network and then start a new sentence stating what the organization's goals are. For example you could write, "As well as assisting Chicago-students in choosing colleges, OMD also helps students to create and follow educational goals as well as helping students network with professionals in their career of interest after graduation." This is just a suggestion on helping the lead flow better and not sound choppy.

Overall, you guys have a clear structure and layout of your organization, that's easy to follow. With that being said, I think your group could go a step further. In the history, you talk about how the organization came to life and who the CEO is, which is all great and useful information on your topic. However, you then begin to talk about fundraising events held and given how many events they have held, that could be a section within itself. I also think it would beneficial to add a mission statement about your nonprofit, this will educate your future audience on the necessity of this non-profit.

I know it was already touched on, but I too think that adding more information to your "programs," section is a must. This is the core of the organization and therefore contains sufficient, thorough information.I took a glance at the website of One Million Degrees and found all the programs made available to students, so I think just listing those programs and giving a summary of each would really help your article.

There needs to be some cleaning up in regards to your punctuation, grammar, and use of wiki links. This is probably the biggest weakness of the article. There are some words that could use wiki links such as "Eight annual food and wine benefit," your audience has no idea what that is and might be interested. I would also link the "David Kerrane Foundation," with the same reasoning as I previously listed. From there, you just need to clean up the punctuation errors, such as run-on sentences and overuse of commas. Punctuation and grammar are easy fixes.

Overall, I think you guys have a strong and interesting topic. This is a nonprofit that definitely needs to be written about and could bring more students to the organization, depending on who comes across your article. The main focus at this point is just moving some information around, as well as adding to sections. You guys have a strong amount of reliable sources, so that takes care of credibility and notability. I also think this sounds very informative vs. marketing. I feel like that could have been a problem with this topic because it's a program that prides its self on helping others, but you guys did a great job at remaining neutral and just presenting the facts.

Achicago88 (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

After reading your article I believe you have some great ideas that have been executed nicely and others that need a little more polishing and refining. First off, your opening sentence is great as it is simple and gives imperative information. However, your second sentence needs some work as it is far too long, is hard to follow, and has grammatical errors. The lead does not read very smoothly and should be broken up into multiple sentences instead of one big run on sentence. Overall it is difficult to follow and should be reworked.

I do like your quick facts box on the page as it gives very useful information on your non-profit organization. Furthermore, your history section is great as it provides great details in a neutral tone, it is easy to follow, and it presents many useful facts. On the other hand, as you begin to talk about the fundraisers I can sense a change in tone that can seem a little bias. I also think it could be made a little shorter and simpler. I did, however, like the mention of the award nomination at the end.

Under the programs section I think everything has a great tone and works well except for the “professor assistant” part. It is not clear what “group” you are referring to and it seems like you may have gotten this directly from their website, which most likely contains bias opinions. I think your “Partnerships” section was executed nicely and has a great unbiased tone throughout and is easily read. All in all, I believe your article has a clear structure and the main topics make sense and are in a good order. You seem to have a large number of references and they seem to be very reliable and trustworthy. The main critiques I would say is to rework your lead so it flows more easily, is easier to understand, and is error free. Furthermore, I would consider reviewing the studies you mention and the programs sections as there is a noticeable changes in tone. I think this is a great start and will be a great article after being tweaked and polished.

Alex ozo (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Lauraski (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph, the second sentence is very long. I would rewrite it and make two sentences instead of one.
 * History section, first sentence: I would start with “The Daniel M. Kerrane Foundation was found…”
 * History section, second paragraph, second sentence: I would rewrite the sentence or split it into two sentences instead of using “and” twice.
 * History section, third paragraph: Two sentences in a row start with “Their”, I would change that.
 * History section, fourth paragraph: “In 2014, assistant professor at University of Illinois Lorenzo Baber” I would rewrite it and put the name first after the date: “In 2014, Lorenzo Baber…”
 * History section, fourth paragraph: “He found that people talked about how the organization focused on each of the individuals”- the sentence is confusing.
 * History section, fourth paragraph: “helped achieved this goal” I would change to “helped to achieve”.
 * Programs section, first sentence: “and [stipends for” no need of “[“.