User:Gmbretsch/Housing Opportunities for Women (HOW)/ViduushiPrasad Peer Review

General info
Housing Opportunities for Women (HOW)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gmbretsch/Housing Opportunities for Women (HOW):
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

HOW’s lead to their Wikipedia article seems well placed, spaced, and organized. We liked that they include five subheadings before the actual lead of the article. These five subheadings provide a broad overview of HOW that anyone could navigate. The lead provides a concise and neutral worded summary of the HOW organization. However, it does not provide a list of what to expect in the rest of the article. Even so, it seems to start a good flow that seems to be followed in the rest of the article. It would be more beneficial to hyperlink HOW’s website instead of just inputting it as text in their article. This would allow users to access HOW’s website instead of having to copy paste it to a new tab.

Content:

The content sections make the article appear to include detailed information. However, there needs to be more than just 3-4 brief sentences under each of the 4 sections for this article. Currently it seems like the lead is more detailed than any of the other article sections. Therefor it would be most beneficial if they elaborate on the sections perhaps by referencing more sources if they don’t have as much content with their current source quantity. The “Event” and “Community Impact” section seem to have references that are summarized in neutral language. Although, there are no footnotes for the “History” and “Services” sections. This might be something the group wants to reconsider.

Tone and Balance:

Reading through the text, the tone appears neutral for the most part. Some sentences that seem like they are slightly opinionated are backed up with a reference at the end of the sentence. The “Services” section of the article seemed a little repetitive to the lead description. This is because there isn’t enough of a description under each article section as I mentioned above. Under the “Events” section, the second sentence starts with “2” instead of “Two” and seems to be incomplete. They should consider revisiting this sentence to make it more cohesive, maybe changing the word “events being” to “events are” would complete the sentence.

Sources and References:

The sources used in this article are published between 1984 and 2023. This provided a decent range of different source types and coverage. However, we would urge the group to consider adding more than just four sources and perhaps looking into either radio interviews, podcasts, od YouTube videos as potential sources to also add along with the current written sources they have been using. We feel that it is always better to have more sources than few, especially considering one of their sources is HOW’s website. In terms of source formatting, it may help to add a section above citing the sources in MLA style as currently the Wikipedia reference list doesn’t show when the sources were published, only when they were retrieved.

Organization:

The organization of the HOW article is easy to digest. The very first  heading on the article “Housing Opportunities for Women” followed by a line under makes the article seem professional. We also liked that each section heading was bolded and a bigger font size than the actual content. The lead section with the five subheadings could also be bolded or underlined to differentiate it from the actual content (at least the title and the colon before the description). Some reference numbers do not have a space before the next sentence starts, this could be double checked to bring more unity to the presentation of the article.

Overall Impressions:

Overall, Housing Opportunities for Women’s (HOW’s) article does a good job in maintaining neutral language, is well organized and provides a very brief description of what HOW is. There is a lot of potential to add more information, sources, images, links, and creating more of a format to be followed. Other than the suggestions and comments from the previous sections, we don’t have too much feedback to offer. For a first draft, the HOW article seems to be off to a good start. Double checking for grammar and spell checks never hurts. It may help them pinpoint some specific they missed before.