User talk:Tkracinski/sandbox

Peer Review
Wording within the history section is a little awkward. I would restructure the sentences as well as break up the information more. It is a little hard to follow due to the wording.

Grants and programs very well written and information is straight forward.

“The effects of the government shutdown on national parks were used by the mainstream media as a token in order to illuminate what happens to federally funded entities during these periods.” •	I would reword this to be more clear

“…as shown in articles from sources such as the BBC, the Chicago Tribune, CNN, and the New York Times.” •	I don’t know if you should necessarily state where you found sources from, I would just site the information.

When listing money be consistent with either US$3… or just $3…

I would also work on making the page more cohesive. Some of the paragraphs are indented while others aren’t which is making the page look a little all over the place.

Overall a lot of information is provided, I would just create more paragraphs within the sections to organize the information better. Nataliej929 (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review for the National Park Foundation
1.) Lead
 * The thing that I liked about the lead was that it was short, sweet, and to the point; it summarized the main points and explained the overview of the article. Thus, I was aware on what I was going to read.
 * I would try to find a secondary source on the number of parks instead of using the actual website.
 * I suggest using a infobox that would allow readers a quick insight and information on the organization.

2.) History I liked how you included links to well-known individuals; it made understand a bit of their history and background.
 * I only see one source in this section, so I suggest gathering more sources in the history section. It would enhance this part more and you might find additional information that may be necessary.
 * The information could be rearranged a bit in that you started at 1967, and moved to 1916. So, I would organize the information more where creating separate paragraphs could help structure this section a lot better.
 * Some information is already in the lead section, so I would eliminate some repetitive information. (E.g. The number of national parks, etc.)

3.) Funding

Best Idea Program
 * The information flows really well and is in great detail; it explained the different grants that came from the programs.
 * I would again look to see if there are more sources that explained the programs and avoid using the organization’s website as much as possible.

4.) Current Goals and Projects
 * What sort of awareness does the “Find Your Park/Encuenta Tu Parque” try to accomplish? Be more specific.

Effects of the government shutdown on US National Parks
 * I would suggest placing this information in a different section; it does not seem to go under “Current Goals and Projects”.
 * In addition, a part of this section focused on media’s role in covering the National Parks. If the media played a drastic role in this shutdown, creating a subsection would be something to add.
 * I would just focus on the effect of the government shutdown on the National Parks instead of the sources that covered the conflict. Instead,
 * Be sure to look at if your sources do work. Citation #21 for New York Times led me to an error page. Try to find another source that corresponds to the information you are looking for in this section.

Overall Marsh5668 (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I really enjoyed reading the article because it was quite informative. Every detail was necessary in order to project the overall story of the organization.
 * Work on organizing the information and phrasing certain sentences. This would allow the reader to better understand the article and have an easier time in processing the information.
 * Finding additional sources apart from the organization's website would be recommended.

Your lead is good--tells me what I need to know. Gabbyxkay (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Add an infobox! Another great way to summarize what your organization is all about.

Add more sources in your History section. It’ll provide more reliable information.. But be sure to clean it up and rearrange some things, so it flows.

Grants and Programs is a great section--very well organized and easy to read!

You have tons of great, useful information, however think the main thing to be edited is breaking down some of the sections (Current Goals and Projects + Effects of govt shutdown) They have lots of wording that can be hard to follow/ not pleasant on the eyes. Clean it up by adding more paragraphs or specific sections.

Also, good job adding the hyperlinks where needed! Gabbyxkay (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)gabbyxkay

Feedback
Hi! I have some feedback for, , , ,.


 * I tweaked some of the sentences in the history section, mostly to remove some slight redundancy. For example, you don't have to use words now and currently in the same sentence with a word like continues, since that assumes that it's still ongoing. I also made some edits for flow


 * I removed the bolding on the grants section, since that's typically not done with headers.


 * On Wikipedia be careful with wording like "inspired by". There are a lot of words and phrases that will seem pretty harmless anywhere else, but can be seen as promotional on Wikipedia depending on how they're used. It's something I typically try to avoid, to be honest.


 * Do you know when the America’s Best Ideas Program launched for the first time? It would be good to include that in the article. I also re-wrote the first paragraph in this section a little for flow.


 * I changed the word hopes to intends with the ALHF section. Hopes was a little passive and intends just feels a little more active, like it matches the efforts.


 * Be extremely careful with the government shutdown section. This needs to be as neutral and straightforward as possible. I would go for a "bare essentials" approach for this and let people click through to the main article. Part of the reason I'm emphasizing caution here is because government topics like this are often subject to controversy and debate. The main page for this is under sanctions, meaning that it's more closely watched than other pages and needs to be edited very carefully.
 * In that tone, avoid things like "bring to light" since that can be seen as problematic if someone were to interpret it as being anti-shutdown or being written with a bias. Even if many would agree with you (I do), you have to be as neutral as possible. Something else to take into consideration is that this should really only cover how it specifically impacted the National Park Foundation, as opposed to the National Park Service as a whole. This looks to be more general towards the NPS, so anything beyond a basic reporting and mention of the fundraising would be better suited for the main article on the NPS.
 * I've substantially re-written this section to where it shouldn't really be seen as controversial or raise any eyebrows.

In general this is pretty good - it could use more non-primary sources, but this is something that could definitely be moved live. On a side note, be careful of Fox News since it's not always seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia. It may be good to find other, stronger sources to supplement it. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)