User talk:Rutgersgirl81/sandbox

I think you're working in another sandbox as well, but I'll leave you some feedback here all the same. You have a good sense of the organizations to be covered, but this has a long way to go before it looks like it should for the peer review drafts. Try to organize the information you have into paragraphs and give some sense of the overview of the non-profits section: what is the big picture of this topic? Colbuendia71 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW #2 From HAPPINESS47 This new sandbox you have is more organized and has a lot more information than the last. You intro has much more as well. I like that it's clear what you are going to talk about. The intro says what are some of the causes that lead to some of the help that now these non-profits are offering. For the listing of your non-profits it still needs a little more. It needs some history, insight, information on it. I know it's been difficult to find some history on these non-profits but you could also mention a couple events they have done in the past. Maybe something that has gotten attention from social medias, newspapers, companies. Rather than focusing on what happened to the non-profit in the last couple decades, it would be better to mention what events, or who they have helped, or who are they involved with could you give you alittle more to work with. It could be something a yew years ago rather than something 50 or 30 years ago that might be a little more difficult to fine. In addition, you could put a sub-heading so it identifies that list of non-profits because I thought I was reading another paragraph of the intro. It would distinguish it from the intro.Happiness47 (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)happiness47Happiness47 (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The intro section here is really well done, I think, though I'm not entirely sure if you or HMB97 did that since you were working in the same sandbox, and now you're not any more. But it gives a good overview of the non-profits in the city and why they operate. I think that once you get into the material below it would be good to use some kind of formatting to distinguish the various non-profits. Maybe bulleting or bolding would work. One thing I'll say that is really necessary in this work before it gets moved onto mainspace: links to other parts of Wikipedia. Be sure to look for opportunities to link elsewhere. I would also encourage you, though I know this has been a tough issue, to look for further sources. I sent out an email a few days ago that might help with finding additional sources based on the conversations we had with the partners last week. Colbuendia71 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from happiness47
Your top section is a very well written summary of what Philanthropy will mention. I like that it's direct, neutral and informative. I do believe that when you mention The Neighborhood Center that you should make it it's own paragraph and cut it from your fist paragraph if it's an important non-profit and add to it. If there are other non-profits that are important on your list they should have their own paragraph as well. Your list of non-profits needs more attention. Their services are listed as your non-profits are. I like that you mentioned their services and links to their websites but since it's history on them, it needs who developed these organizations? How long have they been operating? Any success stories? There could be history that involves other people, places, events that maybe didn't work or volunteer at these organization but had some type of connection to it. You did do a great job of citing all of your information. Also, make sure that you highlight important people, places, things that could already have a Wikipedia page so people can find more information. You could do that same for finding information on your non-profits. For example, if Jane was the co-founder of Project Hope, look up her name instead of just searching on the internet for Project hope, there could be something useful. I hope my comments were useful and I will help you in any way.Happiness47 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)rutgersgirl81Happiness47 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It can be a bit hard to tell where your work and HMB97's begins, so I'll do the best I can to differentiate. One thing I'll say is that the two of you have a lot of overlap right now, and I'm a bit concerned about duplication of effort. Again, I'm reading your page after hers, so it's a little hard to tell whose work is whose, which is of course natural to Wikipedia. (But of course it makes grading a nightmare.) I would say focus on two things: one expanding the general intro of the non-profits, possibly using some of the sources I mentioned in class the other day. I gave HMB similar advice, so the two of you might want to coordinate on who is doing what. Secondly, try to flesh out some of these other organizations. What other kinds of interesting information can you provide about each of them? Another priority is increasing the number and variety of sources you're drawing from. Right now, a single site being cited isn't quite enough. Colbuendia71 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)