Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program/Courses/Writing: The Editing Process (Jennifer Geigel Mikulay)/Sandbox

Below are some observations that emerged as we looked at the article with our "editing hats" on during class on 4/11/2012. The focus of our analysis was 1) neutral point of view and encyclopedic voice, 2) references for all claims, and 3) quality of content/writing. Jgmikulay (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Overall Text

 * Article feels choppy and not very clear. There is no flow. There are overlaps.
 * There is repetition, for example of awards.
 * Interest in bolding names and times to make key elements easy to find and read.
 * Needs more of a general feel and fewer intricate details.
 * References seem strong--variety of sources used.
 * All of the links work!
 * There is some wording that seems to favor the Housing Authority's point of view. We need to differentiate between the Housing Authority's words and proper encyclopedic style. Need to pay attention to wording to keep it neutral.
 * Citations should include website and full information.
 * Watch grammar--some sentences start and stop abruptly.
 * Use tools like Word to help with grammar and spelling.
 * Charts for funding section were really nice.
 * Watch out for jargon and vague words like "affordable" and "sustainable."
 * Avoid direct links to websites in the body text--include those only as citations.
 * Need to look beyond sources from the Housing Authority--use the material on Library reserve and new research to support claims.


 * Great job on the collaboration on this draft, everyone! It's a great start and these are all solid points to move forward with. I'll just throw my two cents in regarding some of these suggestions, to help add some nuance as you continue on.
 * - I'm unsure what the discussion was surrounding "bolding names and times to make key elements easy to find and read," so I may be incorrect here. But you should be sticking with the Manual of Style Text guidelines when bolding or italicizing anything. There are specific reasons for bolding in articles (for instance, the first mention of the article name should be bolded.) Otherwise, you should avoid it.
 * - Agree to definitely not include external links within the text. Please see WP:EXT for the standards on this. If there is an extremely pertinent external link, it can be included in the External Links section. Similarly, as mentioned, all citations listed in References should be full, proper citations; not just links. This is a good place to include external links. Note that if a link is already included in the references, it should not be included in External Links.
 * - Agree on all other points. Great job! LoriLee (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

History

 * There should be a timeline or chronological arrangement of the information.
 * Citations need to be added.
 * Need to smooth out choppiness of different writers.


 * It's best to include content narratively and chronologically, rather than via a timeline (at least in my understanding.) LoriLee (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For more context, here's an example that I've written for a history section for a museum: Indianapolis Museum of Art. It's certainly never easy to make an abundance of historical information concise, but if you push through it can turn out OK in the end. While it seems easy to incorporate the content as a timeline, I believe this is against the Manual of Style guidelines. Narrative is always best, and while it can seem hard to pull things together, and it may seem choppy, it will come across as more encyclopedic, which is always the core goal. LoriLee (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Today, the group noted that this section needs more work in areas of brevity and citations. --Jgmikulay (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Leadership
Today the group noted that the section needs help with mechanics. Some parts need more development, and some gaps need to be filled. --Jgmikulay (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Name the mayor when describing appointments.
 * The sentences says there are seven members but there are eight listed.
 * Look to see if there are Wikipedia articles about the individual people so that we can create links.
 * Each member has big information's gap. --Yunnamjoo(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

Residents
The group noted that this section could be improved by enacting a more neutral point of view and striving for greater consistency. --Jgmikulay (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Funding
Today the group noted that it needs to take the numbers and make sentences that describe or explain the funding situation at the agency. --Jgmikulay (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarify annual budget--income and expense.
 * Make capitalization consistent.
 * Need to coordinate with the awards section.

I took out HOPE VI information, here's what is was (citation included): Since 1993, Hope VI - a program developed as a result of recommendations by National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing - has awarded HACM with 6 grants, collaboratively totaling $150,200,000. CCMore (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Took out tom barrett financial education award info, here it is (citation included): In 2012, the HACM Commissioner, Sherri Daniels, along with Milwaukee’s Mayor Tom Barrett and others joined the Boys & Girls Club youth in celebrating a grant of $15,000 to expand a financial education program. CCMore (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Took out info about WHEDA tax credits, here it is (citation included): Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA) awarded HACM with tax credits to revitalize different locations. In 2002, WHEDA along with HOPE VI awarded HACM with $26 million in tax credits to revitalize Lapham Park. In June of 2010, “WHEDA awarded HACM the single largest allocation of low income housing tax credits in WI history, $73 million over ten years, for the revitalization of Westlawn.” CCMore (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Took out info about EBE contract money given to EBE businesses in Westlawn, here it is (citation included): Westlawn has also been awarded contracts and recognition from their projects. CCMore (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Took out info about HUD grant for computer center, here it is (citation included): In October 5, 2004 the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded HACM with $250,000 to create a community computer center. The HUD promotes economic and community development while providing funding for housing in particular. The grant was given to Milwaukee for a computer center for a particular reason. The computer center would allow residents the ability to receive information regarding employment, gain educational opportunities, and develop life skills. The computer center was stationed at Cherry Court Senior housing center. Most of HUD’s opportunities are made available to low-income Americans, especially minorities. CCMore (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Programs
The group noted today that it needs to work on adding citations and improving mechanics of writing. --Jgmikulay (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The example overshadows the general. Needs to be more context.

Awards
Today the group noted that it needs to remove jargon and strive for greater consistency. --Jgmikulay (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Need to differentiate awards and funding.
 * Need to coordinate with funding section.
 * Try not to repeat information from websites.

I need to specify the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph (Five years later, in 98, HACM used the funding from HOPE IV's second grant to help (build/restore/upgrade?) the award-winning...) CCMore (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Images
I have asked Paul Williams to investigate whether he can upload images to Wikimedia Commons that we could use to illustrate our article. I hope to hear from him soon. For now, I used Creative Commons Search and found an available image of the new Convent Hill development. If you find other possible images, please note them here. Thanks! --Jgmikulay (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Final Review
A small committee of students has self-organized to complete the final revisions on our article and hopefully see the project through to publication--thank you! We agreed that each student would review one section thoroughly and provide a "second set of eyes" on at least one additional section. We plan to complete this level of review by Tuesday, 5/1. We will spend some time in class that day reviewing the article and strategizing about next steps.

Please remember to use this talk page to work out ideas together. Please also remember that User:Protonk, User:OrangeMike and User:LoriLee are available for assistance. --Jgmikulay (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Some technical pointers: we don't use honorifics, so all the "Mr. This" and "Dr. That" and the like should be purged. The Manual of Style should be consulted, as you're not following our style on things like capitalization, bold-facing, nested headers and the like.
 * On a more substantial note: way too much of this over-long article is sourced only to the Authority itself. I know the folks over there, I've worked with some of them myself in my day job, and they're good people; but you don't source an article to the subject to this extent. Also note: there is way too much smarmy biographical crap (much of it violative of NPOV) about various officers, board members, etc. Take a look at the article on, say, Apple Inc. or Alverno College: there is not that much about the personnel, because the article is about the institution, not the officers and board; and the tone is much more neutral and encyclopedic. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The End
Thanks to everyone for working to develop and improve the article. I'm in the process of culling the material, and I hope you'll like the results at Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee. --Jgmikulay (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)