User talk:Ewhitworth/sandbox

Article Evaluation: The article I chose to analyze is HonestReporting. In my opinion, the article is not neutral. It explains’s how the NGO has helped the side of Israel in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The author of the article has clearly chosen a side to the conflict and by reading the article it is easy to see which side he has chosen. There are also some sources that have not been checked and by clicking on them, I realize that they might not be the most accurate one for the information provided. Some of the information is linked directly to the NGO YouTube page. In my opinion, if the information is taking from the NGO YouTube page, it is probably not going to be neutral. There are also some information that is lacking any sources.

==comment Good start on an interesting organization. You'll want to give this a once-over for grammar but it is looking like a very useful entry.Dwebsterbu (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
This is a great start! You seem to have a very good grasp on how the group works, as well as some of the projects they have done. I do have a few recommendations though, in case you might find them useful. For one thing, this article might benefit from a section on the group's history. I'd say you already have an advantage, since you can probably incorporate how the group works into the group's history. Talking about the group's history can also give some context to the group's actions at that time. You have quite a few sources, and they seem to have helped provide information on the group structure. Adding those reports to the article was a wonderful idea, and a good way to add detail to them individually if you choose to do so. I have noticed however, that there are not very many scholarly sources. The sources you have look good so far, but adding a few academic sources will make the article look a bit more reliable. You might be able to find some books in the school library or articles on the library database that will work well for this purpose, especially if you intend to add a history section to the article. I think you already have some plan in mind as to what to add next, but I have a few more ideas if you're interested. Were there any notable members of the group? Somebody must have lead the group at some point, and some mention as to the activities of these individuals might be useful. You also had a section on awards the HHRO received. Did they encounter any obstacles or controversy as they did their work? Finally, I noticed you brought up the topic of collaboration between the HHRO and the United States government. did the HHRO work with any other organizations or governments? What was the relationship like in these cases? I think you've done a wonderful job so far, and hope it goes well as you keep adding and improving. Best of luck! Noah NoPet (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
I am assuming the introductionis the "Wiki Main article"? make sure to write it down! The introduction is an important part of the article!!

anything missing I added in bold so you can see quickly where it is.

From the few references and sources I have seen they seem to be reliable so I don't think you will have any problems with that.

I would add the history of the organisations!!! That is super important! The questions you can ask yourself: How was it funded? why? in what context was it in? you might be find info on the organisation's website !!

Instead of putting international Partners as I title I would write down "Other Partners" because there aren't that many international ones

I did not correct everything but watch out for grammar and sentences structure. You can go to the writing centre so they can help yo out with it!

You made the article very understandable and simply for us readers to understand it! Good Job :))

Léa Piernas