User talk:Wsumme2/User:Faithberwick/sandbox/Jvasqu24 Peer Review

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The article helps provide a good illustration as to what, "Chicago Books to Women in Prison" is. The opening of the article gives all the descriptive details to ensure location and foundation of the organization. iS is to the point, and a point of factual information was also used in the beginning statement.

Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? Two phrases that help describe the subject in a clear way were used in the beginning of the article. The two words being too educate and empower. These words stood out to me the most, because they represent why the organization does what it does. By providing women in prison with books the organization is helping women become more educated and empowered.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? There aren't too many changes that need workin the article. However, one of the sections that I feel could use a bit of work is the funding section. It feels as if this section is listing a bunch of facts or bullet points instead of providing information on the funding aspect of CBWP. Also in the beginning of the article the factual information that you provided was good, but I personally believe it can be put in a better place to flow more accordingly. In the history portion of the article, Thee's a lot of great information in the article. Some of it is just a bit confusing. For example, when it was stated navigating through tight spaces making it challenging to see what books were actually available in the 650 square foot facility. With this statement it feels as if you could ask the question, IS this piece of evidence essential or important to the article's history.

Why would those changes be an improvement? For the reader it helps them want to learn about the organization more. Hearing factual information is great but too much of it may become boring. Also the flow of the article is essential in the understanding of information. With that being said I think if you moved some of the information around it may help the reader be understand the organization better.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing you could do to improve the article is make your flow of sentences better. If you put the information that goes together in a more specific grouping you can provide the reader with a better understanding.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! The expansion aspect of the article is something that could be applicable in my article that is not used. My organization had a big expansion aspect in their creation. Being able to speak on how a group became to what it is to be provides a great illustration as to how hard the individuals work.

Jvasqu24 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)