User talk:Simba0617/sandbox

Peer Review
Agreen56 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) In the history section you mention Sheldon McElroy and a lot of background information on him, but do not have a reference link of where you got this information. It is important to have references of where you get this information so you don't get flagged for plagiarism.
 * 2) In the history section, check on some of the grammatical aspect, it gets a little confusing and rambles a little bit. The sentences are short and choppy, you can make it flow better with some minor changes.
 * 3) The criticism section was really well done and shows the issues with the program very well. I liked the way that you brought up the potential issues with using the bail money on people who are unsafe and that the money could have gone to someone wrongfully in jail. The brief summary in the beginning is also very well done and doesn't give too much information for an introduction, but still enough to know what they are all about. The references also look really good and show you have done extensive research for this.
 * 4) In the Goal to End Cash Bail section, go over some of the sentence structures because they seem a little confusing when explaining how cash bail works and the reason it causes problems.

Peer Review by Staygolden1
Staygolden1 (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) First, I liked how the article provided sufficient information to readers like us who do not know alot about the Bail Project and enabled us to dive more into their background history and learn more about their overall purpose as a nonprofit organization.
 * 2) However, I suggest breaking apart run-on sentences throughout the text(i.e; adding periods between text, or semicolons if the text before and after connects with each other) so readers can go with the flow and continue reading with ease.
 * 3) In the history section, I felt like I was reading more about the history behind Sheldon McElroy and Tracy Stanton rather than the history behind the organization as a whole. I acknowledge that those two individuals play an important role in the organization itself, being that they are employees for the Bail Project. I recommend giving the two individuals that were introduced(Sheldon McElroy and Tracy Stanton) their own sections below the history just like how the individual, “Robin Steinberg”, was given a separate section. By doing this, you can go more in depth on their individual history and their significance to the organization without clouding over the history behind the Bail Project. Make sure to also add in text citations for Sheldon McElroy and Tracy Staton to back up what you wrote about these two individuals. Like this one, an article listing sufficient information about McElryoy’s past and how he has helped people now: https://www.cjactionfund.org/leaders/shelton-mcelroy.
 * 4) Additionally, I noticed the word “difficult times” was frequently used throughout the history section. When you guys mentioned “work to help others during their difficult times”, I would suggest the word “difficult times” to be elaborated further such as, financial debt, emotional trauma, homelessness, poverty, etc. And also, include how individuals who work with the Bail Project have helped other people during their “difficult times”. Some examples may include but not limited to: giving them homes, helping pay their bills, getting them good paying jobs. By doing this, other readers like myself can get a clearer picture of how the Bail Project has lent out help to those who needed it.
 * 5) On another note, I also suggest using word choice that strays away from negative connotations especially in the history section. For instance, since the term “poor” can often come off as off-putting/provoking to other readers, instead of “poor” or “he was poor” you can use the words: “poverty-stricken”, “ low-income”, or “impoverished” and instead of “she was addicted to drugs” you can say “substance use problems”. This can give off a more neutral tone to other readers. In addition, I did a google search and dug a little further on what did you mean by “COVID” under the accomplishments section as I got confused once I got to this section. I suggest the title: “COVID” can be rewritten along the lines of “Reducing jail populations during the Coronavirus pandemic”. In turn, this change is essential as readers can be given a more specific and accurate depiction of what the Bail Project did rather than naming one of their accomplishments after the name of an illness.
 * 6) Some additional changes I did was polished up your introduction including your leading statement, fixed some grammatical errors throughout the article and fixed some of the wording in the history section such as, "she was addicted to drugs" was changed to "substance use problems".
 * 7) I strongly believe that there is always room for improvement and I hope you guys keep some of these recommendations in mind while re-editing your article. All in all, I enjoyed reading this article and being informed about what The Bail Project was about, keep up the good work!

Peer Review by Butterflyisflying
1. First off, I was impressed with the amount the references you and have the way you have used them in all the paragraphs. That is something I would definitely try to include in my project. I also think you have organized the page well, it starts off with the lead, history behind the organization, the founder, projects, etc.

2. So, you start off with a short and strong leading paragraph, but you should make edits to the "History" section. Firstly, the paragraph was too lengthy, I lost my focus when I was only on the third line, maybe try to cut down some information and add 1 or 2 sources to the paragraph. Secondly, you have used "he" way too much and it looks repetitive. Apart from that, while I was reading your page, I felt as if I was reading a news article about "The Bail Project." For example, "This motivated Steinberg to push The Bail Project forward as a way of challenging the cash bail system," I think you should cut this out since you are making your own claim. Also, I changed COVID to Covid-19 because that's the official term.

3. The main change I would suggest is to change the tone of the page, it sounds very opinionated to me instead of being a page only about facts and information. I think the article needs an edit in the sense it feels more like a news story that you've written. I think you should change some phrases that you've used. People go to Wikipedia to simply read the facts and I know it's tricky, but you should be mindful of when you sound like you're stating your opinion.

4. I liked the criticism section a lot, I think it was well structured. It made me wonder whether or not we should add one to our article. Also, I think your lead paragraph is a strong aspect of this article which gave some different ideas about the ways I could change the structure of my article.

5. I wrote down some changes, but I changed COVID to it the official term. I edited the history section in a minor way since I think you have done more research than me on it and you should be able to make the decision on what you want to include and not.

--Butterflyisflying (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review By Andreavazqu
The references look great! You should try linking the schools that some of the founders went to like New York University of Law and Harvard. I would do this so the readers can interact with other Wikipedia pages that may also exist within yours. I would do this with some other organizations mentioned such as Black Lives Matter. Great background info on how the nonprofit was organized, I think as we continue to edit you guys should focus more on the tone and voice, just to make sure it sounds neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreavazqu (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer review by Mayapiea
1. you article has a great amount of references and I definitely think that it has amazing potential. I also like how the sources are appropriately scattered within the article. Great job so far

1. There are many changes that could be made to improve you article. In the first sentence, you should mention that The Bail Project is a non-profit organization before you talk about what it does.

2. The History tells about the past of McElroy and Tracy, not the history of the organization. I think if you want to talk about the founders past, that should be under a different section because the History section implies that it will entail the history of the organization. Maybe refer to a more developed Wiki article (ex. Planned Parenthood or Toys for Tots) and look at their History section for reference.

3. The History section has grammatical errors such as missing commas, and syntax errors.

4. The History section writes like an essay or like an autobiography. I believe this is due to the content of your section.

5. Goal to End Cash Bail section has grammatical errors and is written with colloquial language, which makes it sound too casual and not professional or academic. Sentences 1-3, and 5-6 are sentences with grammatical errors, or could be rephrased to sound more professional. This is probably the biggest thing you can do to improve your article

6. Under the Accomplishments section, the subtitles could be removed. Instead, do bullet points. You can refer to a developed article such as the Toys for Tots wiki page for reference on writing notable achievements. Titling the accomplishments as "COVID", "2020 Black Lives Matter Protests", and "Across the Country" are vague and misleading.

7. Reading your article made me realize that syntax and flow of the wording is an important development that can be made towards my own article. Because we have so many people working on one piece, the writing style sometimes shifts between sections. We can easily fix these things together. I've learned a lot from reading yours.

8. I changed the first sentence by adding that its a 501 c3 organization and I changed the Accomplishments to notable accomplishments and made it into a bullet point format. Mayapiea (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)