Talk:Alt space

Peer Review: SAJMDO

1- I really like how the article is structured. Showing the different partners that the groups has is very effective in showing how important they are in the communities. I would say that the sources fit with the article, as well.

2- The lead sections is not really clear. I get that this group helps communities with "trauma", but I do not know what types of traumas. That is the only thing that is not clear. If you could add that piece of information, the rest if the article will read easily and clearly. Also, I would say that there is information in paragraphs that needs to be explicitly said. For example, when you list the dates of the Family Picture day, it seems that writing out the dates will make the paragraph longer when the paragraph should have more of a focus on what is going on in that event. I do not understand what you mean by beautifying the community. Like, what is the group doing with the portraits? How is that "beautifying" the community? I guess what I am saying is to explicitly state what is actually going on within these events. I think you chose good events to highlight what they do, and are interesting, but "beautifying" the community is very broad.

3- I would say that the group should keep in mind that we did not do the research for this non profit, so we do not know everything they know. The descriptions of the events and the group actors should be stated explicitly, and in a concrete way. Also, make sure to describe "trauma" (in the lead section), and "beautify" (in the projects section).

4- I really enjoyed the breakdown of the organization's partners. The list really visualizes how the group is embedding itself into the community and with other organizations. I think it also shows how much the organization actually cares and tries to be as involved as possible.

5- I just changed a couple of grammatical errors. There were some sentences that when I would read sounded off. So, hopefully I was able to get these sentences to sound better once read. I kinda wanted to add part of descriptions to try and show what I mean about explicitly stating the information, but I do not have any research on it, and did not want to put in fake information.

SAJMDO (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey you guys. Over all it’s a really great article. I thought it was a good read but I’m going to be brutal in the critique so that you know what to fix and where you need to pay special attention. I ultimately want you to be able to submit the best Wikipedia page you can.

So to begin, it was a little frustrating in a few parts both in the lead and in the History because you mention trauma but don’t elaborate on specific traumas... things like displacement, exclusion, poverty, restricted access to art spaces or arts in schools.... these are very specific issues that black and brown communities that are shunned by the federal government deal with and traumas don’t cut it as the explanation. Also when communities are mentioned please specify that these are black communities on the south and west sides that the co-founders are from and working in (primary because it’s important to why the organization was created, but also because a few of the neighborhoods you mention are historically black communities).

That first point boils down to be specific and intentional with your descriptions and elaborate... be so specific it makes you personally uncomfortable and that might just be specific enough for everyone else to understand what you mean.

Next, I have just a few grammatical errors that should be addressed, I changed a few but it’s 501(c)(3)Djehuity (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC) not (501c3)... and yes you got that from the official site, but it’s wrong there and Wikipedia even has an article on the correct way to style it. Also, in the History and Projects sections literally EVERY paragraph starts with “alt_” there has to be some way to change that so it’s not soooo redundant.

This 2nd point boils down to be mindful of your grammar and correct stylizations.

Finally I leave you with a few important questions that need to be addressed in the article: Where is the Criticisms or Media section? I thought this was required for our final submit. Is it alt_ Chicago or just alt_? Is the Free Family Picture day apart of the Project Stamp or something altogether different? If it is in fact related you need to elaborate how and connect them. If not it needs it’s only section. And in the Hyde Park Art Center subsection you mention the North Lawndale Incubator... what is that?

All in all you guys have nice formatting and I think we can incorporate a longer in-depth lead in our article.

I edited minor grammar edits, added a few links, elaborated on what specific traumas in the lead, and made a few slight edits for more elaboration in the history section as well

Djehuity (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Djehuity

Peer Review - Cheddar 99

The authors did a great job in the project section of the article. I was very impressed by how the authors employed a clear layout for its projects' list. Moreover, the language that the authors use in that section is very neutral and informative. The chronological structure of the section constructs a coherent timeline of the organization’s activities through time.

Moreover, the list of partnerships is also a great use of structure. Like the project section, the straightforward listing and a brief description of the partnerships convey a clear way for the readers to interpret the information. Our group can learn from this article is the clear structure of the partnerships and projects sections. Other than that, I really like the brief description of the partnership between the organization and its partners. The authors keep it very organized and informative about the organization’s activities. That would be something our group can learn from.

I would recommend the authors to change some of their word choices in the introduction and history sections. For instance, such phrases as “a non-profit organization based in Chicago, Illinois that strives to revitalize and uplift communities”(introduction) or “alt_ as an organization represents the deviation from the artistic and cultural norm and a push for change in Chicago’s black communities.”(history) might sound advertisement for a Wikipedia page. Thus, instead of words such as “revitalize” and “deviation,” the authors can choose more neutral words such as “support” or “unconventional approaches” to make it clear that you’re describing the organization’s works instead of promoting for them. Those changes can help the article to stay neutral instead of appearing as a biased narrative. Thus, in the article, I rephrased some sentences using more neutral word choices and edited minor grammatical errors.

I would also recommend increasing the number of sources used for the article, especially in the history section. The current history section doesn’t have any citations; thus, adding the sources to find the information would appear more credible. Besides that area, I noticed that a citation in the project section, “Hyde Park Art Center,” is located after the name instead of after the finished sentence. From what we learn in the class, I would recommend changing the citation’s position to that sentence's end.

Cheddar 99 (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)