User:Jinge C/Friends of Chicago River/Muffin3287 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Friends of the Chicago river: Jinge_C, MarcoVelaz07, Pvazq3, SkyeCOMM206

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pvazq3/sandbox
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Peer Review Jacob Struchen

Lead[edit]

The lead's introductory sentence introduces the organization and keeps it's overview brief. The lead also contains information that pertains to each section within the article doing a great job at insuring readers will know what to get from the article.
While no information in the introduction is not addressed later the introduction does mention them collaborating with other organizations which while mentioned in the article, could benefit from being it's own section separate from projects.
Aside from that the introduction is short, has all the necessary information, conveys why the organization is notable, and takes a neutral stance.

Content[edit]

All the content within the article gives a great overview of what the organization does and why they are notable in Chicago.
Within the overview there is a part where "according to the friends of the Chicago river site" is mentioned, which isn't necessary due to the citation being in the sentence
Instead of saying "some members of the board" in the overview "some members of note" or "notable members" may be better as the members listed are connected to other organizations making them notable
All content is up-to date even including upcoming events like Chicago River day 2023, however this event is written as an upcoming event when it may be more beneficial to write as if it already happened to keep the page from getting out of date
In the Chicago river day section I feel you could include a bit the interactive elements to organization made for the first event like the mapping tool as detailed in "Friends of the Chicago River Reinvents Its Huge One-Day Cleanup As a Summer Challenge" just because it seems like these original elements they make are a big part of their volunteer events.

Tone and Balance[edit]

Aside from a few parts of the article the article is able to maintain a neutral stance which is what is recommended for an article about an organization.
In the second paragraph of the Projects section instead of saying "Friends of the Chicago River helped to report" maybe just "Friends of the Chicago River reported" in order to stay neutral
In the second paragraph of the Chicago River day section the event is described as "an annual effort to improve the health and beauty of the Chicago River", just writing "The event is part of an annual effort by the Friends of the Chicago River" will keep the page neutral

Sources and References[edit]

The organization as a whole seems notable based on how much events they have held in Chicago and based on the amount of coverage they have gotten from the media.
The sources chosen for the article all also seem to fit the Wikipedia requirements for usable sources, though a couple are from site of other organizations who have worked with friends of the Chicago river as those mostly just describe the events they have worked on together they are good for the article.
A lot of the articles used are from WTTW which is fine due to it being an independent news source as some of the other sources seem to have worked with Friends of the Chicago river on some events it may be useful to try and find at least one other source from a news site that hasn't worked with Friends of the Chicago river.
The signature programs section should have sources for it's fact about the volunteer programs being free
Some citations are kept separate despite being the same source such as "Group Calls for End to Garbage in Chicago River" being both source 2 and 5, when it should just be listed as one source and re-used throughout the article by clicking "cite" then "re-use"

Organization[edit]

The organization of the articles is well done with the overview going first then projects and signature programs. I would only change the organization if the signature programs section ends up having more of what the organization is known for in which case move it above projects. Otherwise the organization is great
In the second paragraph of the Chicago river day section an event in 2022 is written about as if it's upcoming when it already happened with "will", changing it to past tense
Is Chicago River day a subsection of signature programs? if so are more being added to that section or if that is the only one maybe the section can be renamed to volunteer programs.

Images and Media[edit]

No images or outside media are featured yet though one of the organization's logo should be in there.

Overall Impressions[edit]

This article is overall very neat, organized, and informative, with only some minor issues that don't stop it from completing its purpose. I only really found minor issues that if cleaned up will make the article slightly more comprehensive and neutral. I feel that the most important changes that should be made include changing the works cited to re-use some sources rather than make them separate but still repeat them and changing the description of events to talk about them as if they already happened. I like your lead the most as it is perfect in informing readers what to expect from the article and will probably look to it as an example when working on the lead in my groups project.

~~~~ Jacob Struchen