User talk:Jazzalejandro/sandbox

Peer Review by Kai Brady
1. What the Gilda’s Club article does well is that it goes into more depth of the organization that isn’t on the current wikipedia page for it. It talks about some of the funding that it’s received and the requirements every club needs to meet which is very important. They also talk about celebrities that have been associated with the organization.

2. I’m not too sure if there’s a turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way.

3. I would suggest to put the dates/years in order so it doesn’t jump from 2017 to 1996 like in the “Celebrities Associated” section. I would also suggest looking for one or two other large donations or programs that happened between 1996-2017 to fill that gap in the “Celebrities Associated” section of the article. In the “Recent Events” section, I would suggest going more in depth with what activities are hosted instead of using “etc”.

4. These changes would help to bring the article more content and fill time gaps. If more programs can be found I think that would help bring the article more together. Not sure if it’s being focused just on Chicagoland location or expanding out to other cities, but maybe stating programs from different locations would help bring the article together as well.

5. The most important thing that could be improved is the time gaps. It leaves a lot of blanks and I’m sure they’ve had events within those gaps, especially since there’s different location, but they might not of as well.

6. What I think I can apply to my own article is to possibly seeing if there’s been any celebrities that have been associated with the Rebuild Foundation and add a section from them.

(Qnzk (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC))

Peer Review by Harmonee Morgan
Harmoneemorgan (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It gives a good, well thought out expansion on the celebrities associated with the Chicago branch of Gilda’s Club; as well as recent events the Chicago club has hosted. It also has in-depth information on what each celebrity has done for the club, and the impact these actions hold. Also, it explains what criteria each club must meet in order to be approved. I was impressed by the specific criteria each of these locations must meet before they are approved.
 * 2) Yes, I believe the opening sentences are very clear, and they also legitimize the organization by stating all of the important criteria they must meet prior to being approved as a club.
 * 3) I suggest that they make sure they are consistent with the spelling of Gilda's Club, they need to decide if it is ‘Gildas Club’ or ‘Gilda's Club’. The main article spells it as ‘Glida’s Club’, so I suggest they go off of that spelling. Also I noticed that every money reference used a dollar sign and number except for the mention of one million dollars in the first section. Also, I would suggest that they pay close attention to ‘wikifying’ their article; linking in famous people as well as notable places.
 * 4) I think it is important to make an executive decision on how the author(s) want to write money amounts as well as the title of their organization. I believe these changes that were stated above would make the article look more professional.
 * 5) The most important thing for the author(s) to do for improvement of the article is to pay close attention to grammar and sentence structure. I thought the article expansion overall was very good and had quite a bit to add to the original Wikipedia page. However, I thought some of the sentences were very wordy such as, “These specific criteria includes: accessibility, each club must be near public transportation and easy highway access, meet 1 million dollars in fundraising before the opening, and adhere to approved wellness therapies” I think maybe it could be revised as, “These specific criteria include: accessibility - each club must be near public transportation and easy highway access; generate a minimum of $1,000,000 in fundraising prior to opening, and adhere to approved wellness therapies.”
 * 6) All of the information in the article was straight and to the point. There was little to no flowery wording, which made the content very clear cut.

Peer Review by Paulina Carrillo
1. Whose work are you reviewing?

Melissa Solis - Gilda's Club

Gilda's Club Link...

User:Jazzalejandro/sandbox

2. First of all, I really like how much information you have put together for the Expansion portion. I believe that truly comes in handy for readers to see in case they want to engage in the meetings as well if they are from different locations in the country. I like that you kept with the tone of not adding your own opinion, but keeping with the factual flow of the writing. I also think the celebrity association makes the article fascinating to read because people are mostly attracted to those in the highest level of social media hierarchy, so I love how you put well known names in the article to make it more relatable instead of just writing a bunch of facts. I also am interested in how you added the recent events area in the paper, It keeps readers up to date with what is happening and that is usually not an area that is included in a Wiki page (that I have seen). Your sources are all great, I think you organized those well and put them in the correct format in your writing.

3. When it comes to turn of phrases that describes Gilda's Club in as clear way is when you spoke on the criteria for the new locations; it gave us a sense of what the club was and what you were being a part of, so I did like that manner of expression. Also, in the recent events paragraph, it spoke about the different "services" that the club offered and that really helped express Gilda's Club in a clearer way.

4. When it comes to changing the article, I do enjoy all the content of information, but there are some sentences that seem more opinionated than others, so I will list some area that should be considered for revision below....

- in the celebrities associated section, try and rearrange those people mentioned according to their date chronologically. It is a small change, but it makes a big difference.

- Make sure to wiki-link certain terms that already have a page and is relevant, such as Anthony Rizzo's name in the celebrity section, the Chicago Cubs, a link to the donation page of Ricky Gerval's $10,000, etc. You guys did a lot of it already, but there is some that still needs to be changed. But this goes for all of the sections, there were just a few missing like the ones mentioned that need to be revised. Read over 1 more time and make sure you got all the notable names listed.

- the recent events first sentence needs to be changed, maybe even deleted and starting the paragraph at "All of these events...." instead ,and instead of saying "all of these events", make sure to name them off the bat, and specific events.

- again, for the celebrities associated page, make sure to name all of them or at least more than just the notable ones. Link them at the bottom

5. I believe these changed would be significant and helpful to the article because it makes it more organized. Chronology is important in a piece of writing because some readers can get confused of the order of events and how everything came to be. I personally feel like these changed just clean up the paper a little bit, The actual content is great for the article, it is just the way you organized it that seems a bit off with the dates, names, etc. Also, clearing up specific events instead of "all of these events" gives a reader clarity on what you are trying to write about.

6. I think the most important thing you, as the author, can do is reread your work and organize the sections in chronological order. I think you will make the paper a more approachable read. I also think you should go back and just give more details instead of informal nouns because it is possible that that can lead to a reader to have more questions than he had answered when reading your writing.

7. Your article gave me an amazing idea to add notable figures involved in our organization. I honestly did not think of doing that because I thought our founder was famous enough to focus on just him, but since our organization is large and impactful, I feel like mentioning notable people that helped benefit the organization would be a delightful idea.

--Misspaulinac (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)