User talk:Bergkj/sandbox

Heriberto's Peer Review
I think that you have done a good job explaining what the organization is all about and you have good reliable sources. Here are some humble suggestions that hopefully will help you improve your page:


 * Work in your history section a bit more. You just have three events in total and one of them hasn't happened yet. I feel that there's a lot to be explored in their 27 years of existence. Here is a pdf with information about their programs. Maybe you can do some research in some of them and find out how those projects started etc.
 * Something else that you could also consider is merging all their collaborations in just one "partnerships" type of section.
 * The "notable people" section and its information could also may be integrated in your "history" section? I don't really feel that there should be a whole section just for the notability of the people since the page is about the organization and not so much about their founders and staff.
 * Finally my last suggestion for you would be to try to distribute the information that you have in your "statistics" section among all your other sections based on their context. If you feel like you want to have a section for "numbers" maybe you could create an accomplishments section?

Well, that's all I have for you, hope you find something that can be helpful to your further edits.

El Shinobi de Zaloya (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Abigail's Peer Review
Overall, I think you have a lot of good information gathered so far. The lead was very neutral and provided basic facts about the organization. Possible changes that could be made:
 * I think the history section needs some work, specifically by adding in some of the information from the Notable people section.
 * I would also try to get rid of the notable people section entirely as it could easily be merged into the history section.
 * Be careful when going in depth with the information about the owners, the page is about the organization, not about the individual owners. If the information does not relate to the organization, I would reconsider putting it into the article.
 * I would also find a way to incorporate the statistics section into another one or possibly rename it to "Operations" since it talks about what the organization does and how many people they help. I would also move that information further up in the article, because it is rather important.

I made some slight edits to your article, mainly fixing grammatical errors and helping sentences flow better. I also tried to fix the phrasing of certain sentences that sounded somewhat biased, mainly in the History section.

Alafra21 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Clare's Peer Review
I enjoyed reading your article and feel that you have good structure and organization, especially in your programs section.
 * Something I did notice when reviewing your sources is that source number 3 and 6 are the same article.
 * In the WomenOnCall Merger section there really isn't any information on what WomenOnCall is. I understand that this article is about Chicago cares but I don't think a sentence on describing what WomenOnCall is would hurt.
 * Looking at the serve-a-thon section there is a statement that reads "Chicago Cares sponsors several events to promote awareness and increase activity within its organization" however out of the several events only the serve-a-thon is discussed. I would add more events or omit this sentence altogether.
 * Lastly I would add more information to your history section. there is a large gao in time between the organizations founding and your first fact that happens in 2011.

I made a small grammatical change in your article and relocated a sentence from notable people to the WomenOnCall section. --Clare.mckeown (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)