User:Margaretconway1702/Refugee FORA/Raearutherford Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

MargaretConway1702

Link to draft you're reviewing

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead      The Lead has current, up-to-date information regarding FORA. The introductory sentence accurately classifies the type of non-profit organization that is Foreign Opportunities for Refugees in America and its founders, but the second sentence does a much better job providing a synopsis of the work done by FORA. I think this group would benefit greatly from tweaking that sentence to make it longer and include the second sentence. Basically, I think the group should edit their first sentence to say, “Foreign Opportunities for Refugees in America is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2019 by Michael and Kathleen O’Connor, functioning through dedicated educators committed to providing life…”. Unfortunately, the Lead does not include a brief description of the article’s main sections, I think the group could also see improvement by including that. Sections included in the article other than the lead are history, services, and impact. Perhaps the Lead’s concluding sentence could be edited to a sentence along the lines of, “Through FORA’s exemplary history, various services, and influential impact, hundreds of children are building critical literacy….”. That being said, the Lead does a good job of only presenting information included in the article and avoiding unnecessary additions, making it concise and not overly detailed. Content The content included in the article is relevant to the topic, FOR A.  The content added is up-to-date, current, and in line with FORA’s work. I feel like the “History” section could use more expansion and specificity. For example, I think expanding on the need for an organization like FORA would be an excellent addition and make readers connect more deeply with the organization on an emotional scale. I think the best way for people to grow interest in a non-profit organization is for them to find an emotional connection and a full-proof reason as to why they should help. This article does an excellent job of dealing with many of Wikipedia’s equity gaps like women and historically underrepresentation populations, refugees. Tone and Balance     The content of the article is all verifiable facts, making for a neutral article introducing FORA to more people. The article’s tone is supportive and light, showing approval and the goodness of the organization, but not an overbearing amount that would create bias in readers. Because the article attempts to bring attention to FOR A and they work they do, not many political claims or controversial topics are brought up. The only “claims” are useful information and historical insight, nothing that could be taken as supporting a particular position, just supporting helping refugees. Although many of the viewpoints feel complete, the “Impact” section could use more content. I think delving into the significance of the impact of FORA is important. FORA provides “a safe space for learning and support for students,” why is this important? What does this impact and how? Overall, the content is aimed at bringing attention to the organization but does a good job not forcing anything on the reader. Sources and References All new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, making it easily verifiable and considered reliable evidence. Despite the content being verifiable, the cited sources seem to only be included, not expanded upon. Meaning, the cited sources are there, but only there, they could better serve the article, but including the importance and why the source is included could be beneficial. The current sources are thorough and reflect the purpose of the article, they just need reflection and analysis. The sources include lots of local news stories by many authors and include views of citizens of Chicago, which is imperative. The links work well, but some sites require a subscription after a certain amount of time, which some readers will not want. Organization The content is well-written, but there needs to be a second grammar check, there are a few small errors. This can be seen in the “Services” section, there is an extra “s” that does not belong. I also think the article could benefit from changing the structure and placement of some content. I think there is room to improve the flow of the entries. Articles should have a clear flow and easy to follow structure. I also suggest that the “Impact” sections reiterates the services provide by FORA but in this section include why it is helpful to the community.