Talk:The Dreamcatcher Foundation

Peer Review by Norphina

1. I was impressed by the organization of the article. I think the authors did a good job utilizing headings and subheadings to break up the information and make the article easier to follow. The structure of the article is clear similar to the pages of other non-profits I have looked at.

2. I would rewrite or remove the criticism section since it has an advertisement-like tone and had little information about actual criticism. I think changing this section would help the article have a more neutral tone. It would be helpful to have sources in this section that cite criticisms of the foundation if there are any. You might have to go out and find more sources for this section or otherwise delete it.

3. I think the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article is to fix some unclear wording and grammar issues throughout the article. I was distracted by some misspellings and vague sentences (like: “They do so by offering support to better the lives of the victims through different resources and services”). I think sentences like these could be rewritten to be more clear, concise, and informative. It is important that every sentence is purposeful.

4. I noticed that some of the subheadings only have one or two sentences under them, which is a problem we also have in our article! I think we both need to work on adding more information to these sections or combining them to fix the issue. If more information cannot be found to add to these sections they might have to be deleted or reorganized.

5. I fixed the sources in your references section that had a “check date values” error as well as a few typos where there was an extra space in a word.

Norphina (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by Gab0413

1.) Something I think the article did well was not only breaking up the information in a way that made it easy to follow, however, I really liked the beginning of the article, specifically the history section. As someone who never knew what the Dreamcatcher Foundation represented until this project, I feel like from reading the history, I got a much better grasp on what this organization is about, and how it is that it was started. In addition, I also think the second paragraph of the mission section was well written, because right away it dives into what the goal of the organization is, and I think that's important as we aren't writing to simply fill up space, but rather to inform people of what the DreamCatcher Foundation is, as well as all of our other nonprofits we're making Wikipedia pages for.

2.) As far as making any changes, I would change the second sentence of the lead where they say, "where they can intern the victims as the organization helps them". Especially the "intern the victims", because I think the rest is done well, but I find that one phrase confusing, and don't quite understand what is trying to be said. Which makes me think when other people read it, they might feel the same. Perhaps saying something along the lines of, "Where they help the victims lead a balanced lifestyle". Another thing I would change is parts of the criticism section. While I think the information stated is important, the wording does need to change, as it doesn't sound like it was written in a neutral tone. Specifically the last two sentences read like a paper, or advertisement, rather than what it's supposed to be. Overall, I would say that by implementing the changes I mentioned above, it would improve an already well written article, because I do think it is well done, and broken up in a manner that reads easily. It's simply a couple of changes that need to be made.

3.) The most important thing the author could do to improve the article is changing the wording in a couple of their sections(such as criticism (towards the end of the paragraph, but really the whole thing should be looked at again), Harm Reduction approach (second sentence), and the lead (second sentence). I have also noticed a lot grammatical of errors, mainly with the lack of commas. I would definitely say it's beneficial to reread over the article, and find where a comma is needed. As previously mentioned, the overall content of the article is pretty good, but there are these minor changes that I think could make this an even better article.

4.) Something I noticed about the article that could be applicable to my own article, would be about changing some of the unclear or confusing wording, in addition to writing more underneath some of the sections. With my article especially, I think one of the biggest things we need to focus on is finding more sources, and information in general, because while I like what we have right now, I think it's too short, and we need to add more information. Besides that, perhaps going over grammar, and making sure we also write in a neutral tone. You guys did a great job with that in some of the other sections, but I know it can be hard to do in general.

5.) Some of the changes I made included, adding a couple of commas here and there, and I also changed the wording of one the third sentence underneath the history portion of the article. Lastly, I also added links to important organizations/people, such as MSNBC, the two founders, Kim Longinotto, and My Life, My Choice program.

Gab0413 (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by Redpandas58

1. First of all, I really like the chronological order of the organization in the "History" section. It creates a smooth transition and as a reader, I like seeing the history of an organization starting from the past and then making its way to the present. I also like that you included an "Accomplishments" section because now that I think of it, this is a common and frequent section in any Wikipedia article. It's something that I didn't think to add in my group's article so I appreciate that you did because it provides insight to the organization's recognition.

2. I will discuss my suggestions chronologically. I think the lead can be a bit more specific. For example, you say that the organization "interns the victims as the organization helps them," but you don't mention how they intern them or what they help them with exactly. For example, if they offer financial, or emotional support, I think that would be great to mention in the lead that way it gives the reader a better understanding of how they actually help victims. Although I like the chronological approach in the "History" section, I think the paragraphs can be integrated a bit more. This is because since each paragraph starts off with a date, it sounds a bit robotic; maybe adding some transition words, such as "additionally" will help link the paragraphs together. Next, I suggest to re-visit the "Missions" section. Given the bias nature of a mission statement, I feel that this section is advertising the organization instead of remaining neutral. Therefore, I suggest to remove this section or trim it down so that it's more fact-based while also writing it in an integrated way. Details from the "Mission" section regarding the harm reduction approach can be brought down to the "Programs" section because I think that is a more appropriate placement. I also suggest to make "Accomplishments" its own heading because it is separate from the "Mission" section. In terms of the "Programs" section, I suggest that the heading "Focuses on Healing/Recovery and Health Services" should be included in the "My life, my choice" subheading instead because it is relevant to that program. Finally, I feel that the "Criticisms" section is too opinion-based instead of fact-based. Instead of saying why you think criticisms exist for this organization, try finding actual media outlets or people that have critiqued them. This will make this section less bias and more reliable.

3. The most important thing is to be neutral. I can tell that you have a lot of passion and respect for this organization, but in a lot of the sections, it sounds too much like an advertisement, especially in the "Mission" and "Criticisms" sections.

4. Like I mentioned earlier, I really appreciate that you added an "Accomplishments" section. This is now something I am considering adding in my group's article because it sheds a light on the organization's contributions and recognition.

5. Some changes I made: I linked the Wikipedia page for "non-profit organization." I edited some sentences in the "History" section such as "they were former sex workers." I edited some sentences in the "Mission" section such as "The foundation tries to help as many victims get out of these situations, especially those in which they cannot get out of themselves." Redpandas58 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Redpandas58

Peer Review by Lena

1. The lead could use more info, they just say what the org is and mention something about a facility which may go better in the recreational section. The lead also feels a little short, a bit more info could be given about the program upfront, like about who created this non-profit, or briefly explaining what they do to help people. The info about the new facility seems unnecessary as well. It just explains what the organization does, they could summarize the article better with the lead, so that a person could get a general idea quickly without reading into too much detail. The lead is very concise and to the point. It's a little too short. Lead evaluation: More details should be added, try to summarize rather than just explaining in one sentence what they do. Content.

2. In the History section, the last three paragraphs feel like they belong under accomplishments rather than history. There are some sentences that can be changed around, mostly in the history section. I also think the documentary may be worthy of its own section with further research about how the org contributed and how it affected their image. Make sure to watch wording mistakes, some sentences, especially in the first paragraph under History sound awkward. In the History section, try to make the story flow better, for example, you talk about an interview and mention they talk about how they came up with the idea. You could say they came up with the idea because of their experiences, as stated in this interview. Same with the mission section, in the first paragraph, the second sentence doesn't make sense. Try saying something like due to complex, or unfortunate, or whatever circumstances, these women... The second half of the third sentence is redundant. The residential center program's last sentence has biased language, like "must find the girls a home" instead of aims to, or places. "So they can have their own beds and spaces" can be reworded to sound less biased as well. The harm reduction approach can be reworded, the second half of the first sentence is confusing, and the last sentence can be reworded to explain how the founders believe this approach makes girls feel more empowered. Just look over the article and remove wording that sounds like it favors the org too much. In terms of the info, the article feels complete. I don't think there is any more that you need to add, other than maybe some extra info regarding the documentary and the My Life, My Choice program.

3. I like that the language is simple, the headings and organization make sense and the references are good. When you explain what something is, I feel like it is easy to understand, there are no big, uncommon words. How can the content added be improved? You could rearrange some of the info you already have just to make the article flow better. You could also work on some of the adjectives you use to describe programs to seem less biased and make sure to check the wording of some sentences that sounded awkward. I would either get rid of the criticism section or add some controversies because it seems unnecessary. Overall evaluation: There are some things to add, and rework, but overall, this is a good article. The neutral tone needs work, especially in the last section, however, I know it can be hard not to praise an organization that does such a good thing for the world. Just try to focus on what language you use, and how you are wording your sentences. This was a good article overall, just a little more info can be given in certain places, and things can be moved around. Lsearcy44 (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Lena Searcy