User talk:Imadoor98/sandbox1

Peer review General Info:

• reviewing Imadoor98 's sandbox for the Anti Cruelty Society (User:Imadoor98/sandbox1)

• User:Imadoor98/sandbox1

Lead:

• The lead vaguely reflect the content of the article; could even be more concise which would potentially make it stronger; comes across as more of a summary than a preview

• Yes the lead has an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic

• The lead previews the "Adoption" section of the article but leaves me wondering where the "veterinarian services" heading is

• Leaves me looking for an elaboration on the multiple Chicago locations as well as elaboration on the current president/board

• Could be more concise which would potentially make it stronger; comes across as more of a summary than a preview

EVAL: The lead is slightly misleading and slightly over informative, but it does introduce and clearly inform the reader about the topic. After reading the lead, I feel confident that I know the importance of the article. It is not the strongest reflection of the most important information discussed later in the article though which is slightly confusing, but it does slightly allude to it. It is just missing a more straightforward preview of the articles contents.

Content:

• The content is in fact relevant, although vague. The history heading however seems to be floating because it is not previewed in the lead.

• The content appears to be up to date. There is no info for 2011-2020 but that could simply be because there is nothing significant to report from this time period.

• As stated before, I feel as though the article is missing headings about the veterinarian services, Chicagoland locations, and current president/board as they were all mentioned in the lead. In the last heading "Adoptions" I feel as though a lot of information is missing. It seems very vague and as a non profit that serves as an adoption service I expected to learn more. Also, this section mentions "no kill" but there is no elaboration or context (or even a link to another wiki article so they can click on it and educate themselves), so it could be confusing for readers that have no knowledge of it.

• In terms of information that does not belong, I feel as though the information about horses under the Great Depression is misplaced, or perhaps belongs there just needs to be tied in to that time frame (seems like it could fit better elsewhere). In that same subheading it states that the society is run on donations, which also seems like misplaced information, unless it was solely run on funds during the Great Depression and not anymore? In the "Adoption" heading it seems that the sentence about the vice president seems like it only half fits under this heading? It is more of a fun fact and less of a crucial fact, unless your'e stating the number of adoptions every year or the length of time it takes to find homes for those 6000 animals or some sort of context. In the "Mission" heading the last sentence seems misplaced, could potentially fit under the "Adoption" heading.

EVAL: Overall there is useful content throughout this article. I feel as though there are a lot of holes in the information or lack thereof. The organization of the sections is excellent beginning with the mission then going in to history, and especially the highlight of chronological order in the history. One thing I noticed is that the mission heading contains a direct quote, which could potentially be put into your own words.

Tone and Balance:

• The content is absolutely neutral.

• There is no apparent bias.

• The "Adoption" heading seems very underrepresented. There does not seem to be any overrepresentation of any information.

• There is no attempts at persuasion.

EVAL: It feels as though the articles length is not reflective of the importance of the topic.

Sources and References:

• Half, 4 of the 8, sources are from the Anti Cruelty Society website, therefore a majority of the sources are not from a secondary source. One source does not have a link at all.

• All sources appear thorough and reliable.

• Sources are fairly current.

• All links work.

EVAL: More sources could be beneficial. There is an abundance of unsourced content.

Organization:

• The content is concise and easy to read, at some points the content is unclear.

• I do not see any grammatical nor spelling errors, just be sure to pick one word for the two parts in the article where two similar words are offered in parenthesis.

• The article is very well organized. All of the headings and subheadings flow in a nice order.

EVAL: Overall the article is easy to read and is arranged in a clear to follow order.

Images and Media:

• There are no images nor media.

PEER REVIEW GUIDING QUESTIONS:

1. First and foremost this is a great topic and a solid article. The best part of this article is the history! It is so important to let readers know that this organization came from somewhere, and you went above and beyond to thoroughly lay out its roots and progressions. 2. All suggested changes are addressed in the above bullet points. 3. I think the best way to improve this article would be to treat it as less of bullet point list of facts and more of an informative article for interested and otherwise uneducated readers on this organization. 4. I think the thing I noticed most that could be applied to my own article would be bias/tone. The organization I wrote about is centered around events and experiences so the way we wrote about them could seem to be written in an over positive light. You guys do a great job of not indulging in how helpful, impactful, and positive this non profit is by sticking to the facts and numbers which makes this article very strong. Arianacoletta (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Ariana Coletta Arianacoletta (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Arianacoletta

Peer review by Jaylin

Overall the article is pretty good, but it needs a few improvements to make it better. The toner the article is neutral and unbiased. The content in the article was informative, but it lacks some information. The history should include who founded the organization, who are the board members, and basically any history that is relevant to how the organization came about. Something that is missing would be the “veterinary services” because it was mentioned once in the lead, but it wasn’t mentioned again. It would be good to have that section included because it would explain more about what type of services the organization does as examples. It could also be informative to include the volunteer and events that the organization has to give the readers a better understanding of what else they also do. The lead sounds more like a summary than a preview. You should elaborate on it. I also think that the article format should be more of a paragraph format rather than only bullet pointed information. Something that I can apply to our article is the tone. Our article has a few phrased that could be categorized as biased, so this article gave me a good understanding of how not to make it biased. Your information is really informative and it really well written. You guys did a good job. Chimmy101395 (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)