User talk:Vanguard826/sandbox

The ample amount of references for each statement strengthen the article. I like how you worded the first paragraph chronologically, making it easy to follow. I would recommend saying “Cleaver’s harsh style of leadership” instead of “her harsh style of leadership” just to make it a little clearer. There’s an extra hyphen in this sentence after the word turnout “Maine lawsuit for the state’s lowering voter turnout- in 2020.” Additionally, I think that, when using an em dash, you should have the same amount of, or lack of, spaces before and after the em dash. For example, you could do: “Silicon Valley executives—the main brunt of Vote.org’s donors—based…” or you could have a space before and after instead of “Valley executives- the main brunt of Vote.org’s donors- based…" Just make sure there’s consistent spacing before and after the em dash. Just a minuscule improvement. Overall, I think the balanced tone coupled with a lot of reliable sources make this a strong draft. Nicely done! Matinhomafar (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi,

This article overall looks really good! It has an abundance of sources that appear to mostly come from solid sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Pomona College. Though a few sources are less well-known and academic, like PopSugar, this does not necessarily mean that those sources are untrustworthy or unreliable. Just make sure to double check these sources for potential biases, especially if they're less well-known or academic!

The main objective of your contributions appear to be adding to the history of Vote.org and Vote.org's turbulent history as an organization. The article contributions certainly do a great job of this, adding many facts and events that are not covered in the current version of the Vote.org article. The last three paragraphs were particularly important to understanding the history of Vote.org as they directly talk not only about how Vote.org is trying to make change in US political landscape through the For the People Act, but also using the power of digital media to push their political interests. From my point of view though, the first couple paragraphs are a bit off-focus and potentially go too in-depth on topics indeed related to Vote.org, but do not warrant so much information about them. For example, the discussion of the internal battle between the Vote.org board and Debra Cleaver is interesting and noteworthy but focusing on it so much, at least for me, distracted from the main purpose of the Vote.org article. To me, the best part of your article was when you talked about Vote.org as a whole and how they're using digital media to advocate for their political agenda. For sure keep this internal battle discussion though, it is important to Vote.org's history!

I would also air on the side of caution in terms of your tone. Though your tone is mostly neutral and Encyclopaedic, the article at times can sound like its trying to draw readers to a conclusion about something. For example, in the first paragraph it says, "harsh style of leadership and mismanagement of resources" and in the second paragraph, it says "This contentious mishap". Though Cleaver might have had poor leadership and the lack of transparency from the board could be a contentious mishap, that is up to the reader to decide and the article should state only facts, and not include emotional words like "harsh" that can drive reader to a certain conclusion. Overall though, the tone seems quite good and the article is certainly well-researched! Good job!

Jeffrie w (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)