User talk:Fyoeu

Welcome!
Hello, Fyoeu, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Fyoeu Peer Review
1. In terms of what was done well in this article, I would say that the History section was solid and really well done. The history was very thorough, and I liked that it was broken up into their respective periods - such as 1970's-1990's, 2000's, etc. I think this was a good choice, rather than making the history section either brief overview or one long paragraph. Something else I really liked as I was reading the history, was that this section also discussed very recent history (as of early this year). Just this little detail makes this article seem meticulous and is constantly being updated.

Something else that was done well, was that "Financial Controversy" section. This section really gives you a sense of neutrality in the article, which is what people look for, when analyzing a Wikipedia article. On the same note, I thought that the overall tone of the entire article was consistent and neutral. It wasn't persuasive in any way, and there weren't any red flags implying bias.

2. As for changes I'd suggest, there's a few. In the history section, although I do really like that the respective time periods are broken up, I feel like that very last part, where it says "2020 & Future Plans" should be broken up. Specifically I think that "2020 & Future Plans" should have its own "Future" heading. I think that making this change would be an improvement because in that section, you are talking about things they are "planning" to do. They haven't done it yet or are in the "process" of doing so, so it shouldn't be included in the history section.

Another change I would suggest, has to do with the Lead/intro. The very first paragraph is brief and to the point which I do like, however, it's missing some information. I think that the lead needs to incorporate the who, what, where, when, why, how. The lead should preview the article to an extent, so it just needs some minor revisions. I think that making this change would be an improvement, because obviously, the lead is the very first thing someone will see before deciding to read the rest of your article. So the lead needs to be solid.

3. Most of the changes I suggested are pretty minor, but I would say that the most important thing the authors can do to improve this article, is to revise the lead, even if just slightly. Like I said, it's the first thing people will read and it should preview the article. It should give people a good idea of what the article will discuss.

4. After reviewing this article, there's definitely aspects of it that could be included and applied to our own article. I'd say that the one part I'd like to apply to our article, is the history section. Our history section is definitely really brief, and I like the idea of breaking up the history into different time periods. I feel like that was a better approach, rather than only covering the who, what, where, when, why, how.

Something else from this article that really needs to be applied to our article, is some sort of "controversy" or "scandals" section. Our article could definitely be considered biased because it doesn't say anything negative or conflicting about the organization. Definitely a huge oversight.

Fyoeu (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)