User:ViduushiPrasad/Young Chicago Authors/Sineadbane Peer Review

General info
ViduushiPrasad
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:ViduushiPrasad/Young Chicago Authors
 * 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: The lead-in is really strong here. It clearly presents some key information about the organization and it’s purpose. I think putting their most popular event and some recognizable names up top is a good idea as it draws attention to their successes, and could divert some more internet traffic towards further information about the organization. When people search for the event, they can then have easy access to thorough information about the group. One very minor grammatical edit I noticed is to replace “great” in “the great Chicagoland area” with “greater”. Overall I think the lead-in is clear and concise and functions well in putting important information front and center on the page.

Content: I think the content of this article is thorough and covers its bases well. There is clearly a lot of information to pull from, as we can see in the citations section, and that shows in the content of the page. If you need to add some more information, I think there is room to expand on the events they hold, like where they take place if they utilize certain venues, or other additional information like that. With Wordplay, any kind of information you could provide about how the event functions and what sort of work is shared, how many participants, or anything like that could strengthen the content! But what is there in the article is well-written and clear.

Tone and Balance: The main thing that stood out to me in terms of tone and balance was the history section. There is clearly a lot of information on the sexual assault scandal, which I think is really important to include on the page, but just in terms of size, there is so much of that in comparison to the short initial history section that I almost wonder if it belongs under its own subheading. Like a “controversy” tab or something like that, but if it is staying in the History section, a little more balance with some other historical information on the organization would serve the flow of the article well.

Sources and Refrences: The sources and references for this article are numerous and very reputable which shows in the construction of the information of the article. So the citations section has definitely accomplished its job successfully. Once I was looking at the citations, some of the balance around how much information there was on the sexual assault scandal made a lot of sense, because it seems like that was a major news story in Chicago, so I do definitely think it makes sense to highlight that. So overall the citations we’re really great, some more in-text citations could highlight the strength of the references section as well.

Overall Impressions: My overall impressions were that the page was well-organized and had a lot of great relevant information on the organization. It was clear and had a good flow, information in one section would provide context for information that appeared in the following section in a way that made it an engaging and informational read. The plethora of really solid sources added to it’s credibility as well. There were really only a few minor edits to be made, and outside of those, it functions really well in presenting the information in a clear and readable way, and definitely looks and functions as a well-researched Wikipedia page.