User talk:Dear.Jang/sandbox1

Peer Review: Simba0617
1. I think that you all did a great job of organizing the article. The points of interests (History, function, etc...) goes in an appropriate order and flows really well. I also think that this article was kept neutral, which is important for a Wikipedia article. There were no words or phrases that would cause a reader to believe this is an advertisement and everything is stated as a fact. The information gets strait to the point and there isn't any unnecessary information included. The sources are all valid. Most of the sources that you all pulled from are secondary and come from credible news sources. The Love Fridge website was used, however I think that because it was used to provide the locations of the fridges it doesn't impact the neutrality of the article.

2. One change that I would suggest is to explore the function section more. Stating that the Love Fridges are put in neighborhoods that have issues getting food sounds repetitive because a similar statement is put in the lead and in the first part of the history, and because it was already stated I don't think that the concept of the Love Fridge should be included in the Function section because it gets repetitive. I also think that the Contributor section should be changed. In the first paragraph, you all mention hosts and the process to become a host of a Love Fridge. Then the next subsection is Donation Guidelines, followed by a list of some hosts. I think that you should take the information about hosts from the first paragraph and put it under the Host subsection. This will make this section flow much better as you are reading it.

3. I think that the best thing that the author's can do to improve this article is to reread and see if there is more information that can be added. However, since it does seem that this is a newer non-profit, it is understandable that there is not a lot of detail aside from what you all have. I also would watch spelling and grammar errors.

4. The straightforwardness that I mentioned before can definitely be something that is applied to my own article. I think that being straightforward with the information is important to a Wikipedia article. Not only does it make the article easier to read and flow better, but it also is important for neutrality. Any extra information that is not needed could be perceived as "advertising", and I think that you all did a great job of avoiding that.

5. I fixed "accessible" because it was spelled wrong, and I also put a period after "wellness" in the last sentence of the Function section. In the History section, I took away "during the pandemic of COVID-19" in the second to last sentence of the second paragraph because COVID-19 was already mentioned in the beginning of the section.

Simba0617 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC) 2601:244:4400:6400:3491:8CED:6D0A:D92 (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Simba0617 Simba0617 (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Simba0617

Peer Review by Kmin98
- I think that you guys did a really good job on this article! Everything seems to be organized well and it maintained a neutral tone. It contained a great amount of sources as well having them credible. You guys did a really great job at not making it sound like a news article, which can be very hard to do.

- I would recommend that you guys look into the function section a bit more. The first two sentences felt a bit repetitive from the intro paragraph. You can talk about how the affect the love fridge has had on these communities in further detail if possible. You can possibly talk about how the fridges impacted certain communities. With it being a non-profit organization, I believe that this would be really good information to mention.

-I would re-read the article to double check if there are any spelling errors, double spacing, repeating words/statements, etc. What has helped my the last few years was to look up synonyms for words that I felt were repetitive so that it can sound a bit more smoother. I saw one minor error while reading and fixed it. But, it would still be beneficial to look over each section again.

- Overall, I found the article informative. The most important thing a writer can do is to be able to have the audience understand the article, which you did. Great job! Kmin98 (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Kmin29

Peer Review by GreenGrass23
I believe that the article has a strong lead because when I was reading the beginning, I was able to quickly understand the importance of the topic. It provides an overview of the topic discussed in the article. The entire article was simple, straightforward, and neutral. I believe the structure of the sections for the different topics discussed in the article were organized well. After reading the entire article, I understand the topic, but I believe that the structure of the sentences needs to be improved to flow better. I also believe that the section Function is repetitive, it is clear to understand the functions of the Love Fridge from the lead and history. Parts of the Function section could be added to the lead if needed. I believe the Function section should be changed to Goals or Mission. For example, is this organization only temporary during the pandemic or do they plan to continue for longer? What are their goals? I think that another section could be added titled Achievements. I think it would help to understand the organization better by knowing how they have impacted people’s lives. How many people have they helped since starting? I believe these are the most important ways to improving the article. A part of the article that could be applicable for my groups article is adding a section on the Contributors. GreenGrass23 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by Goldenmoon20
1. I think the article did well in organizing the information that was provided and is very straightforward as to what the organization is doing. There are some suggestions I will make in a second, but overall the organization was good. I liked that there were pictures of the love fridges as it gives the reader a visual representation of what these fridges look like if they were to go looking for them. The use of multiple sources from all areas made the article more intriguing and easier to comprehend.

2. Another thing I liked about this article, is that the locations of the love fridges were included, but I would recommend listing the locations as bullet points or some kind of list form to make it clearer to the reader as to where these are located. Maybe even adding specific directions would help as well. The lead was good, but I feel like it was a little repetitive in mentioning Chicago twice. I think the first one should be deleted, which would make the lead more concise. Another thing I would mention in the lead is that the food from the fridges are free to all community members. This could improve the article because it informs the reader of what exactly the organization is. Finally, I would create a separate section at the end of the article for the donation guidelines. This could encourage people to donate and participate in the Love Fridge organization.

3. The most important thing I would work on is fixing the lead and organizing the sections a little more to be clear and concise for the reader. Adding more information on the locations of these fridges would also enhance the article.

4. I really liked that this article included the contributors at the end and I would like to add this to our article. I think this helpful when it comes to seeing who supports organizations like The Love Fridge, as some readers would like to know this type of information.

5. I went ahead and cleaned up the lead as mentioned above and I also changed the "in the time span from" in the beginning of the locations section to "between".

--Goldenmoon20 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)