User:Raearutherford/Nourishing Hope/SineadBuckley2 Peer Review

General info
(provide username) allanahpollard
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Raearutherford/Nourishing Hope
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead


 * Clearly states what this organization does and where it’s located.
 * There isn’t a ton of information, very general but does get to the point of what the organization does.
 * I would recommend beefing it up a little bit. What are some notable things that they have done, you not that they have programs but what are they?
 * Maybe elaborate a little more on what they do, it’s just a little dry.

Content

History


 * A common thing in your writing is that you state their progress but not how that progress was made.
 * Who established it? How did they establish it? What was their background? What was the organization doing when they started out? Was it just a food pantry, food drives? Just elaborate more.

Operations


 * Once again, its just a little raw. The structure is clear but you don’t explain how these operations and developments contributed to the betterment and production of the organization

Grants


 * Liked this section, a little more descriptive, highlighting certain grants that were awarded and how they were developed.

Programs


 * Liked the inclusion of different programs, but elaborate on the development of the programs if you can. If you have any more information about how these prgrams came to be and if there have been any notable outcomes.

Tone and Balance


 * Definitley not a biased article. If you do add more context to each subject, make sure that they’re not biased but just give more description and history to each section.

Sources and references


 * A lot of your sources are from news websites which could be affiliated with certain views and beliefs but as long as you separate any biases from your information and don’t let that show through in you’re writing, I think you’re good.
 * No in text citations and your citations arent formatted the wiki way.

Organization


 * I liked the flow of your article, each topic that you hit nicely flowed from one to another. I don’t think you need any more topics in your article but once again you could elaborate more on each topic.

Images and Media


 * No images or media, I don’t think that’s a necessity right now, but they would be a nice touch for your final draft.

New Articles


 * It is supported by at least 2 other sources but I think these sources cover your organization very generally which may cause a lack of context. I think if you can find a resource that introduces more context to each specific section that would create a much stronger article.
 * Mostly just news articles and you only have 5, once again, beef it up.
 * Does not include hyperlinks or in text citations.

Overall impressions


 * Very general, not very specific, but not biased
 * Would like some more context in each section to give me a better understanding of how this organiztion came to be.
 * Just go into greater detail about this organization and make sure you include more references and use unbiased references.