Talk:Urban Rivers

Peer Review Zhuorao Li (Raven)
Zhuorao Li (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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? At the beginning, I felt that the introduction was very clear and concise, allowing me to quickly understand what the project was and their goals. I was impressed that they provided enough background to understand where the project came from and why people started it. Their project theme is about projects to protect the health of urban rivers.
 * 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? 1) I think they might need to add citations to the "History" and "Organization Structure" to avoid plagiarism. It can also provide those interested in this project with the opportunity to view more information.  2) In addition, I think they might need more clarification on who is doing the projects. In the article, they mentioned "Lead researchers work with students and volunteers" many times. However, as an audience member, I wondered: Who are those "students"? Is there any more detail? For example, college students, high school students, law students from a specific school, or any interested students over the age of 18. I think this improvement can allow people who view it to have a clearer understanding of who is working on this project instead of still feeling confused after viewing it.
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? 1) They can choose to have family and friends who don't know about this project read it and then ask them if they can quickly grasp the information about this project and improve it with their suggestions, because one of our target audiences is those people who want to quickly understand this project. 2) Add citations.
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I think we can add more background information to let people understand why our project was founded, how it was created, and so on so that people can understand the original intention of the project.

Peer Review: Tschultz1201

 * 1) You seem to have all of the facts! Explaining different projects helped explain what the organization does. I like that you added a section about their most recent work…. Will one of you continue to update it as time goes on?
 * 2) There is a handful of run-on sentences. Make them more concise, very wordy.  Especially the first sentence. The organizational structure part is self explanatory. There is no need to break down what the directors, researchers, and manager do. We already know the realm of their job roles. These changes would make it easier for the reader. As well as keeping only the necessary information included.
 * 3) Be more concise! The partnership section is very lengthy, break it down to make it easier to read. Focus on keeping a neutral tone. There are a few parts where it’s not so neutral. Think about how to make it easier for the reader. It should be easy and effective to read.
 * 4) A big problem we had was actually deleting quite a lot. We did not want to get rid of our hard work, but it was necessary to make the Wikipedia page publishable. There is no need to add fluff, be concise! Remember, sometimes less is more!

Tschultz1201 (talk) 00:55, 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) The article has a clear focus on the initiative. It seems they've researched well and have strong sources. The headers are good and capture what will be discussed on the page.

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

2. The article is incredibly wordy and does not quite have a neutral tone. It reads like a story or essay, not quite a Wiki article. Some of the sentences bounce back and forth between past and present tense (i.e. "The Urban Rivers was founded in 2013" and in the same section, "This project officially began in the early 21st century and it involves a wide variety of hands.) It could use some more specific information, like when in the 21st century did the project begin? It needs to flow better in order for it to be effectively communicating what this initiative is. The authors should cite more of their sources, as the History section has little to no citations and could be flagged.

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

3. Mostly importantly, the author(s) should focus on concise, neutral, clear language. Revisiting the modules that explain how a Wiki article's tone should sound would likely help the authors. There is a lot of vagueness when explaining things, such as saying the initiative works with students, but does not say in the Partnership section a school they work with.

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

4. Our articles are structured very similarly, so it was nice to see we are also on the same wavelength.

Peer Review Jenna Farkas
'''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?'''

You have a lot of good information! It's evident you did the research to find notable sources.

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

Address the very long, wordy sentences. K.I.S.S- keep it stupid simple. Wiki writing follows my dad’s advice: if you can say it in less words, use less words. Sometimes reading what I wrote out loud helps me to find those long sentences and funky wording. This can also help with grammar and syntax.

Also, why is it that you change from saying The Chicago Urban Rivers Project to only Urban Rivers? Is it the full name vs what people call it? I’d explain that.

I don’t think it’s necessary to discuss the Clean Water Act. It’s cool context but it was confusing to read it where it was. If you keep the subject, move it so it doesn't interrupt chronological order of events.

You’re missing a lot of citations.

Add in the full school name for ISU. I assume it’s ILLINOIS STATE, but other schools have the same acronym. If someone doesn't know Illinois State, they may not know what you're talking about.

What do you mean the mollusk arrived? Do you mean it floated(?) in via the rivers or it was discovered for the first time at the location?

Do you have a year/range of years instead of saying early 21st century?

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

Remember essay writing is different than wiki writing. At points it helped me to think how easily we could translate our wiki to other languages without needing to look up a lot of words or if a 10 year old would understand what I was writing. That takes out the ‘fluffy’ words and prevents me from rambling.

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

It reminded me of our first draft before we 'wikified' it. Don't be afraid to delete and rewrite! Don't be afraid to edit others' work- just go for it. It's not personal.

Notes: I added the hyperlink for NIU, Illinois, Depaul, and Shedd Aquarium. I made the A in aquarium into a capital.

I made minor edits to help ‘wikify’ wording. While I thought entire sentences could be deleted or reworded, I didn’t want to change too much. Jennarachel107 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Fartun

 * 1) The article has a good Introduction. We are given a good amount of information on  what the organization offers within the community. I like how they worded this “ The organization uses a framework of mutual aid, knowledge-sharing, and community-sourced resources to achieve their stated mission.”
 * 2) Some changes I would suggest to the author would be to change some of the wording, I feel like some things put into the article could have been worded differently, simplified almost especially when it came to vocabulary. These changes would be an improvement because it would make it easier for the reader to understand what the article is about and follow it. For example, In the history section it was written as, “ the work involves”, I changed it to “These changes include the construction and funding of a new center that aims to open in 2024”. Another change that I made is, “ These aid programs help..” instead of “These mutual aids help people”.
 * 3) Something really important would be trying to cut out some information, mentioning certain things that were not as important to the wiki page.
 * 4) I really liked how they bolded the name of the organization. I really like the headings and would see how I can structure my article the same way.

Fabdi3 (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Alyssa Bernardino

 * 1) This article summarizes Urban Rivers well and displays it in a way that the everyday reader can understand it. I think that the vocabulary used was very good and very easy to read. I enjoyed the emphasis on Urban Rivers' mission and initiatives taken
 * 2) I would suggest capitalizing "Rivers" in "Urban Rivers" in the Partnerships section. I also think some sentence structure could be fixed, such as "Urban Rivers hosts summer programs, in 2023, they hosted the Environmental Justice Freedom School (EJFS)". I personally think this could be two sentences rather than introducing a partnership in the middle of introducing that Urban Rivers holds summer programs.
 * 3) I think the most important thing the author could do would be to add more hyperlinks so that readers can click them to get more context on what some things you mentioned are, such as the Chicago Metropolitan Water Reclamation District and the Environmental Justice Freedom School.
 * 4) I liked how concise this article was. I think that an issue that I have with writing my article is that I am used to going into extensive detail in papers and that is not how Wikipedia reads.

Issaomari (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)