Talk:Bear Necessities Pediatric Foundation

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 29 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RebeccaL2021, Arianacoletta, Chimmy101395.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviews

First

Overall, I liked reading about Bear Necessities Pediatric Foundation, but I don't think that I fully understand what their purpose is. I thought that the second to last paragraph was the best to read because it explained the story of how the foundation directly affected the life of the participant. It gave the reader a good idea of what the foundation works for. I think that, if possible, more stories like those would be a nice addition to the article and one could have another section devoted to stories like that. I also think that the article appeared quite wordy because it is not separated into different categories. It all reads like it keeps going on and on, but the research section and bear hugs section was best to read. I also think that the first section should contain at least one cited source. Lastly, I think it is interesting and I can see it on Wikipedia, but I think some restructuring would be helpful for the reader. Progala312 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second

To begin, the information in this article is impressively detailed! The research the authors have done is extensive and interesting. Another success in this article is the objectivity. Keeping the tone consistently neutral is difficult with a non profit that helps children with pediatric cancer. Something that could be revised is overall grammar and the general readability of the article. There are a couple sentences that I had to stop and read over, or are a bit too repetitive. For example, "Through the Bear Hugs program, Noah was able to experience a chance to go to the Polar Express event because some decided to give their tickets to the event to Noah and his family." Obviously, this is a collaboration and we all have different voices when writing. Attempting to make everything sound like the same author is a difficult task...but I believe, with a few tweaks, it'll be possible to get this article in really good shape. The most important thing to focus on in this article, is making sure that the content is organized in a way that is easy to understand and makes the audience want to keep reading! Personally, I really struggled with objectivity while writing our article on Dreams For Kids. When an organization does something you believe in and impacts others in a positive way, you want to talk it up and reveal all the great things. The authors did this with ease without making it sounds too promotional. I learned how to write in a more narrative style and took notes on neutrality with this article! BigWikEnergy (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third

I think this page did an excellent job of providing a good amount of relative information. This group also did a good job of making sure the tone of the page was overall neutral, which can be difficult to catch everything.A couple things that would make this perfect is to separate some of the information to make it a smoother read. The various events under "Bear Discoveries" could be put in a list to give each one its own spotlight. When all the events are in the paragraph it is much easier to skip over important information. Also, a nitpicking criticism would be that in the first paragraph you have "little black dress luncheon" all lowercase, but when you talk about the event in the next paragraph it is all capitalized as the name of the event. I would make them all capitalized just to keep some consistency. Also, the last little section seems to be the only time that it sounds very (PR), if there was a way to neutralize the tone of the last section it would help. Otherwise, I thought this was a well thought out and informative page. Wikkinelson (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

Be careful, the Notch1 funding for example cites:

American Cancer Society grant RSG-11-189-01-TBG, Elisa U. Pardee Foundation, Rally Foundation for Childhood Cancer Research, Vs. Cancer Foundation, Bear Necessities Pediatric Cancer Foundation, Concern Foundation, American Society of Hematology, National Institutes of Health grants P30-CA46592, T32-CA009676-22, R01-AI091627, R01-DK078927

We should make it clear where funding is part funding.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 04:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]