User:Paytonfelix44/Chicago Coalition for the Homeless/GeneralArgo Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@Paytonfelix44

@A.j.wedryk


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Chicago Coalition for the Homeless


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * 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?
 * 2) They have done an excellent job of providing a comprehensive overview of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) and its mission, history, programs, and impact. The information is well-researched and well-cited, which adds credibility to the page. One of the strengths of the page is its organization. They has divided the content into clear sections, making it easy for readers to navigate the page and find the information they are looking for. The sections are also well-written and contain a good balance of detail and concision. The page also has done a good job of highlighting the impact that CCH has had on the issue of homelessness in Chicago. They provide specific examples of programs that have made a difference and cite statistics to show the organization's effectiveness. Finally, there are a couple phrases that I thought did a great job of explaining the topic. User-generated content such as "nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to preventing and ending homelessness in Chicago and Illinois" conveys the essence of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless' goal.
 * 3) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 4) While the content is strong, there are a few formatting issues that could be improved. The use of headers and sub headers is inconsistent, which can make the page appear disorganized. In some sections, the headers are not descriptive enough, which can make it difficult for readers to quickly understand what the section is about. The writing on the page is generally clear and concise, but there are a few areas where the user could improve. For example, in some sections, there are long paragraphs that could be broken up into smaller ones for easier reading. There are also a few instances of passive voice, which can make the writing less engaging.
 * 5) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 6) While they have done a good job of providing a comprehensive overview of the organization, there are a few areas where more information could be added. For example, the section on the organization's history could be expanded to provide more detail about its origins and evolution over time. Additionally, more information could be provided about specific programs and initiatives that the organization has undertaken.