User:Mgarcdlv/sandbox

Peer Review: Animal House Shelter
Introduction:

I would still reword this introduction, to make is flow a little bit more. I would say "The Animal House Shelter is a nonprofit organization that operates a "no-kill" animal shelter for cats and dogs in Huntley, Illinois. The shelter was founded in 2002 and provides animal adoption and foster services." This is just a suggestion, could just be a case of style preference.

History:

This section's sentences sound a little bit choppy. I would suggest some rewording and restructuring of the sentences to make it all flow. For example, you can start off saying "The Animal House Shelter was founded in June 2002 by Leslie Erwin in Barrington, Illinois, where it housed up to 40 animals. In 2005 the shelter was relocated to its current location in Huntley, Illinois, where it houses 175 dogs and 80 cats, and was able to adopt out 23,000 animals by 2012."

Services:

This section is good, I would just suggest switching the order of the first two sentences (place the second one first), because it sounds like the second sentence cuts in between the first and last sentences. For example, "The Animal House shelter rescues and rehabilitates all dogs and cats before they are set out for adoption. It offers.... Full services include..."

Fundraising events:

Maybe the two sentences should be connected: "Dash for the Dogs 5k is an annual fundraising event that began in 2011." Also include a short introduction sentence just saying that the organization sustains itself through donations and money raised through fundraising events. I'm not sure if it's necessary to include the amount of people that attended the first race as well as how much money they were able to raise. Are there any more fundraising events that you can include?

Donations:

First donation needs some work. "In 2012 the Second Annual....sponsored the Animal House shelter." Maybe include a short sentence that describes the event, some people may not know what polo is.

"$1000" needs a comma after the 1.

The fifth donation was written nicely, I would just change the tense the third paragraph: "In the past, Ford provided Animal House Shelter with financial support and donated a vehicle to transport rescue animals."

The last donation sounds a bit like a mini commercial for FYDOLand. Reword to make it shorter and less about them. Example: "For Your Dog Only Land, a doggy day care center in Huntley, Illinois, donates food, toys, cleaning supplies, and towels to the Animal House Shelter through its Present for Pups fundraising event. It also donates 20% of its profits from dog biscuit sales.

References:

References 6 and 8 are the same, other than that I find them all to be appropriate sources and all the links work.

* Overall, all the information is relevant, except for small detailed information that as I mentioned above may not be necessary. Other than that I see no biased words nor any over or underrepresention of view points. Just needs some rewarding to make the sections flow a little better.

Article evaluation
Alliance for Water Efficiency

The article mentions that the organization's activities include "advocacy, research, and training", however, it does not specify how they've done this, which doesn't allow the reader have a better understanding of how the organization works. For example, I wanted answers to these questions: Who has the organization trained? Where have these trainings taken place? How does it do research? Does it travel to other states for that? In what ways have they shown support for water efficiency? Has it created or led important fundraising events or events to raise awareness? Who was the founder of this alliance? Why was this alliance created and when was it created?

I see it has awards listed on the page, which is nice. It gives the organization a good image. I do think the article, however, is too short. It is labeled as a "stub", which is an article that only provides the reader with very basic information, but even then, this article is still missing some very basic information as I mentioned in the previous paragraph. The article doesn't say too much about the organization, so really it's just better to visit it's official website which can be reached via an external link at the end of the article.

Also, when I tried visiting some of the references, numbers 4, 8, 9, and 10 did not work. When I clicked them I got a message that said the pages could not be found. These references should be updated or eliminated. Other than that the references are in good shape, they are government sites, they end in .gov or .org, so I know I am not being directed to biased pages, or at least pages that shouldn't be biased.

I see the page is in the interest of four WikiProjects, however, I don't see any conversations. It was also nominated for deletion, but it was decided to be kept. It looks like edits have not been done in a long time. In general I think this article needs a lot more elaboration.