User talk:Syassine/sandbox

The language used in the introduction section is accessible to the general audience. Though a bit of the content contains some questionable language. For example, the first sentence could be framed in a way that is open to alternative community assessment tools. There is a strong connotation to the word “essential.” There was a bit of redundancy in the introductory paragraph as well. For instance, in the second sentence, the use of “tool” could be replaced by “method” or “mechanism.” We would also suggest incorporating four sentences after the second sentence that defines each letter in the SWOT abbreviation. We saw that this was included in the chart, but we think it would be beneficial to also incorporate definitions in the intro text. (NOTE: We saw that your two charts are the same image with different descriptions. Is this intentional?)  Lastly, before the hyperlink to the “Social Work” Wiki page, consider deleting the phrase “Social Work” that is not hyperlinked.

In the Steps for Implementation section, we suggest rewording and breaking up some run on sentences. This section also contains some questionable language. In the first sentence, the use of the phase “accurate and effective,” could be reworked to sound less set and bound. Instead, this could read: “Elements to consider in a SWOT analysis…” The second sentence in this section could be more suggestive rather than formulaic. It could read: “Some approaches in collecting information for a SWOT analysis could be...” Also, maybe change “and informal interviews,” to “or informal interviews.”  We are a bit confused as to what you are attempting to convey in: “ultimate analysis of the community and the SWOT analysis.”  Are you trying to indicate that there is a difference between the two? If this is not the case, we would suggest eliminating one of the two. The fourth sentence does not flow well for the reader. Consider some variation of the following: “ Means to identifying the needs of a community and their existing resources include a needs assessment and assets evaluation.” We are aware of the effort to provide a structured approach to SWOT analysis for community organizing, so please consider our suggestions from an angle that is less restrictive. Please try to balance our comments/suggestions with what you have already created. For some readers, it might also be useful to provide a way to apply the process you are explaining using an example (i.e. How could a fake community organization use this?) This might not apply to the intent and approach of your Wiki page, this is just a thought.

In the section When to use SWOT, you might consider breaking this sentence into two. The first sentence could read: “Uses of a SWOT analysis by a community organization: to organize information, provide insight of the barriers…” Also, we are unable to provide a suggestion for the second sentence because we are unclear as to what you are trying to convey after the phrase, “social change.”

Consider revising the last two bullet points in this section to be broken up. It seems as though there might be multiple ideas in the last two points that can be separated.

•	as a brainstorming and recording device as a means of communication. •	to enhance “credibility of interpretation” to be utilized in presentation to leaders or key supporters.

In the section on Benefits, you might want to consider revising sentence structure. In the last sentence, we are unclear as to what the “benefits” are. Might need to elaborate on this idea.

In the section on Limitations, the word “Analysis” should not be capitalized in the fist sentence. The second seems out of place, maybe provide more context about this critique. Consider the same suggestion for the third sentence. The reader could benefit from further explanation.

In terms of references, you meet the requirements of including at least six.

Emilymwhitley (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)