User:Paytonfelix44/Chicago Coalition for the Homeless/Marcovelaz07 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Paytonfelix44 for Chicago Coalition for the homeless


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Paytonfelix44/Chicago Coalition for the Homeless


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * User:Paytonfelix44/Chicago Coalition for the Homeless

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * LEAD
 * -Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that describes the articles topic? Yes the article has an introduction paragraph. It's a straightforward paragraph that tells the reader about what the non-profit does. It lists some of their programs and their mission as well as ending the paragraph with a statistic about how much the non-profit has helped with the homelessness crisis in Chicago.
 * -Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and it describes exactly what the non-profit does. The lead is concise and it does not confuse the reader by having information about the history of the non-profit.
 * CONTENT
 * -is the content added relevant to the topic? The history portion has a information that is helpful to the reader if they want to know how this non-profit came to be and the main person who started it, however it would be helpful to add info about what happened between the late 1990s to the early 2010s and their progress.
 * - is the content up to date? Yes the content is up to date, this is evident also because towards the end of the history portion there is a piece of information about 2022.
 * TONE AND BALANCE
 * - Are there any claims that appear to be biased towards a particular position? Yes on one of the first sentences in the history portion of the article there was a sentence where it could seem to the reader like a biased claim, this error was easily fixed by me when i replaced the word "we" to "they"
 * -is the content neutral? Yes the content of the article seems to be neutral because all the information they include is neutral.
 * SOURCES AND REFERENCES
 * - Is all new content backed up by reliable secondary source of information? Some of the information towards the end of the article does not have citations.
 * -Do the links work? Yes the links do work and they are relevant to the article because some of them are stories and secondary sources,
 * ORGANIZATION
 * - Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The only error I found was the word I edited in already.
 * -Is the contend added well organized? Yes the content is well organized the subtitle choice works well with the amount of information they added. The partnership portion of the article is very helpful because the reader can see something that the non-profit has done recently that is informative and relevant to the topic.
 * IMAGES AND MEDIA
 * -Does the article include images that enhance the understanding of the article? There are no images on the article currently, it would be helpful to add a couple of images of the events under the partnership portion of the article so the reader could understand the topic better.
 * FOR NEW ARTICLES ONLY
 * -Does the article meet Wikipedias notability requirements? Yes the article meets wikipedias notability requirements, yes the article uses secondary sources which include news articles from secondary sources.
 * -Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles? The article does not include info-boxes but it does have subheadings that help the organization of the article.
 * OVERALL IMPRESSIONS
 * - I think the article has really helpful information and the sources they used are also helpful to understand the article better, and I think with some images and maybe some info boxes to help navigate through the article would make the article complete.