User talk:Jennarachel107/sandbox

Camblb
First of all, The good thing in this article is a clear definition of the topic. They described the life of Julia Ramirez by highlighting it in bold. In addition, they highlight 5 main sections which will give an overview of the subject. Also, they added two additional sections after "aldermanic Career" to make the article more readable and understandable. The article's strength is that it thoroughly covers the subject without delving into needless depth.Furthermore, you avoid long sentences, resulting in clear and direct language for effective information transmission. ALSO, I appreciate how you reorganized your article. You proceeded chronologically, beginning with his initial experiences and progressing to more recent achievements, culminating in his personal career.

However, I think this article will need more sources references at least minimum 10 sources.

Aside from the references, I believe the post is quite nicely written. I don't see many to add. Camblb (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review-Eliza Farley

 * 1) I think the overall organization of the page is clear and also well covered. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
 * 2) The article is good. It would be amazing to get more sources, but I'm sure that you have narrowed down to the best of what was online. I would say that all your bases are covered though in terms of simply adding onto an already brief article. Compare your sources and information with the current article to your addition. There are contrasts between both Electoral History sections.
 * 3) Some changes that could be made to the article have to deal with the clarity of information within each section. Reread the whole page like you have had no previous background knowledge from the articles you used. Some sentences don't make complete sense to me, and I have to click on the cited link to clear up the information. It would be more efficient for the readers who come across this page.
 * 4) One thing I noticed that I should probably check in my own article is the grammar in relation to past events. While the news article we might have read put things as presently happening, if it was over a few months ago it was probably an event of the past and needs to have the grammar that implies as such.

Efarl2 (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Erick Bellido
'''First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?'''

The article is very informative and provides detailed information about Julia Ramirez and the context of her life. Also, at every end of a statement, there is a link attached to it to reference it and as well as let the reader know where the information comes from.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

The changes I would suggest is to remove the election sentence in the introduction. The author or writer mentions it later on in the article and no need to repeat the statement, especially in an introduction.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Limit the introduction and to stay in the present tense not future. Add a date when it is mentioned what Julias goals were and when she says it.

'''Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!'''

Try to be informative and as neutral as possible. It is very important and what I got from the article is that one can be informative while not choosing sides or expressing one's own opinions. Another thing would be to try and cite many references to the article to back the many statements I may have had in my own article. Ebelli2 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer review Brian Chan
'''What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?'''

I was impressed with how often the authors cited articles 1 and 6. I think it's a good thing that they often cited the two as it indicates a depth of understanding/research from the two articles, as well as, makes it easy to check the sources/reference. The Aldermanic career section was also very well done and clearly comprehensive.

Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

''Ramirez's long term goal is to take a holistic approach to address public safety. Inspired by the loss of her brother, she wants to address gun violence.''

The who, what, and why are quickly addressed in two sentences; perfect introduction to the section.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?

She advocates for; violence prevention, fully funded education with after school programs, assistance in getting a stable job, and safe public transit.

I made a minor grammar change and edited the article to change the semicolon to a colon because it is a list rather than two clauses

''Ramirez has a background in community activism. She helped immigrant communities access resources and mitigate crime.''

In my opinion the first sentence can be conjoined to the following with a semicolon. It emphasizes the connection between the two clauses without adding too much voice or flowery language. Alternatively it could be removed as a redundancy since Ramirez’s background of community activism is mentioned in the personal career section.

Ramirez has worked with the organization BUILD (and their wiki page).

I’m not sure on the protocol around using parentheses on wikipedia articles but I would avoid it if possible and replace it with the use of commas

Why would those changes be an improvement?

These are minor changes mostly to punctuation

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

There isn’t much work left to be done, besides really minor edits, it seems to be a very comprehensive article covering her career.

Bchan29 (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ava Adams-Peer Review
1. I think that the early life portion of the article gives a clear understanding of where and how she was raised. I also think the explanation of her stances on issues is written well and gives enough detail to understand what she supports. 2. It is mentioned that she has no electoral history but the article previously written shows her electoral history as an alderman. Adding a few sentences about what her election process was like would elevate this section. 3. I think that adding the death of her brother could make more sense in a different section. Although it makes sense to mention it in early life, I feel like it could be first mentioned in her stances when you talk about her opinion on gun violence. In my opinion this information would be more relevant in the stances on issues section. 4. I like that you guys added subtitles to your sections and it gave me the idea to add some more titles to my own article. Avaeadams (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sulaimaan Kabir Peer Review

 * 1) This article has a lot of information and is extremely detailed. It was obvious a lot of research was conducted. The formatting of the article is great. A great strength is the number of sources.
 * 2) There seem to be a few grammar issues, of which I tried to catch and edit some. In the attack section, I think shortening the first sentence in first section would be helpful. Perhaps start with the context that mayor johnson planned this... people in brighton park protested... then continue with a new sentence saying she attended and got attacked. Going off of this, the following paragraph that talks about the governor, is this necessary? at least in the section provided. It seems like that section on her stance can be moved to the aptly named section "Stances on Issues". Some of the language in certain areas seems flowery at least to me. In the stances section "Inspired by the loss of her brother" is this necessary? Why is this information there. The perspective seems odd. Can't it just say she wants to address gun violence explicitly. Also this paragraph starts with her goals, i feel this is odd because it doesn't seem neutral to talk about goals. Why should her goals be on a wikipedia article. Were they explicitly stated in the article or paraphrased because the article linked leads to a dead page. Basically I think it would be useful to clarify stances vs goals. It gets even more confusing when "In the short term, she plans to work" because what does that have to do with her stance. The last two sentences in this section are clear stances.
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 4) I think the authors could revisit certain sections and maybe look to rename them to better fit the body paragraphs. Sometimes the information in the body paragraph didn’t seem like it connected with the title or conveyed that. There were some slight grammatical errors which can be edited as well. A slow reread really helped my team. We also found it extremely helpful to look at similar wiki pages. For example you can look at another alder persons page.
 * 5) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
 * 6) During our initial drafts we noticed that our body paragraphs were too flowery and had a lot of extra information, a slow read definitely helped us. We could also do another grammar check to make sure our article isn’t confusing in any areas.

Slmnkbr (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Ankitha Jada
'''First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?'''

The authors did well with all the detailed information about Julia Ramirez and her life story. It was smart to have a link after each sentence that shows where the authors got the reference. It is all cited clearly so readers can trust where the info is coming from.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

For me the intro wasn't the strongest in the article. The part of the election can be removed because there is a whole segment dedicated to that.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

The introduction can be worked on a bit more but other than that this article is very great.

'''Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!'''

During the election segment try to be not biased just state facts. I know in my article we talk about how amazing the rivers are in Chicago but we can’t compare it to other cities etc to stay neutral and not be on anyone’s side. Ankiiaj (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)