Talk:Chicago Books to Women in Prison

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Faithberwick, Hmarli2, Gonzalez1011, Briefingkat. Peer reviewers: Drocha7, Wsumme2, Jvasqu24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review by Wsumme2

1. Firstly, I think this article's lead sets the tone for the article well. I also think that the info contained within the article had beneficial information within the sections that made it easy for me to understand. All the info also seemed to be neutrally toned along with reliable sources to back up the info.
2. I do have a few suggestions that may be beneficial to this article.
   1. I think that the order of partners/donations in the funding section of the article could be set in a more chronological order so that the dates align from earlier to present. The Beyondmedia education partnership (although it didn't continue) happened before the Bookends and Beginnings partnership.
   2. Also regarding the Beyondmedia partnership, I read in the expansion section that the CBWP prison volunteers meet Sunday from 2-5 at the Beyondmedia location and that they are their fiscal sponsor. That confused me a little because in the funding section it stated that they previously had a partnership with them but that seemed to diminish due to financial troubles. I think this may be due to the last source regarding the meeting time being posted in 2011, and may be a bit out of date. I think that could be looked at a bit and resolved.
   3. Another suggestion I have could be to split up the funding section so that there are subsections that correspond with the sponsors. I think that along with creating a more chronological order as mentioned previously, and adding subsections for the sponsors could make that section a lot stronger.
   4. I made a few edits to some grammatical errors which I noted in the edit history. A bigger edit I made was editing the arrangement of the first few sentences in the history. Originally it was, "The organization began as a feminist project operating out of a room in the Haymarket Co-up by a group of book lovers and archivists, Jack Slowriver, Jodi Ziesemer, Nicole Bussard, and, Arline Welty , in an effort to fight back against the penal system and create a sense of solidarity amongst prisoners and society." I felt like this combined sentences and lead on for a bit so I switched it to, "The organization was started by a group of book lovers and archivists including Jack Slowriver, Jodi Ziesemer, Nicole Bussard, and Arline Welty. It began as a feminist project operating out of a room in the Haymarket Co-up in an effort to fight back against the penal system, and create a sense of solidarity amongst prisoners and society." I also provided the previous sources from the previous arrangement to align with the newer arrangement.
3. I think that the most important thing that could be done to this article includes what I mentioned earlier, which is making it so that certain sections have subsections so that there isn't just a chunk of information regarding various sponsors, or topics. If the sections were divided I think that it would make it stronger and also easier for people to follow because the info could be focused on a more specific topic within the main subject. Not only would it make it easier for people to follow, it will make the article look a lot better due to these subsections, and not just having a huge paragraph under one section. Also something important is making sure that all the sentence arrangements are proper, so I think scanning over the article again and paying attention to the grammar may point certain things out that can be further improved.
4. I think that something I learned from your article that I can apply to my own is trying to find more donors/info regarding funding. Your funding section is very large and can even be put into subsections, and ours is quite small. I feel like finding more info regarding that could bring more clarity to our article. Overall I think I realized that we need a bit more info in our article. Yours contains a lot and although ours is fairly new and will most likely have less info, I think can still be expanded a bit. As mentioned earlier when reading your funding section it made me think that we need more information regarding this subject, and this could also add more info to the overall article.

I think this is a really great non-profit and the info you've retrieved is very insightful in regards to it's main mission. Great work so far!

Wsumme2 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Drocha7

1. I really liked the flow of the information and how it is easy to read from one point to another. I liked that the most important information was put into the sandbox without anything being to excessive.

2.Suggestions for "expansion" section, adding sections, and edits:

•The first paragraph has the exact address of the Methodist Church. I would suggest to move the exact address to the info box and keep the first paragraph more concise.
•I would suggest adding an extra "events" section since I noticed some of the sources include some events that the organization did that could be useful. Some events could be more in depth to use as examples. You can also divide the expansion section into more subsections that shows individual events and when those events occurred.
• If possible, an Initiatives section would also be helpful in this sandbox. A lot of non profits highlight a lot of their work on initiatives. They would help get a quick understanding of what they are about. 
•I edited a run on sentence on the expansion section . Original sentence was "CBWP prison volunteers meet every Sunday from 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. at Beyondmedia Education, their fiscal sponsor whose goal is to empower women through the use of workshops and media." I changed it to "CBWP prison volunteers meet every Sunday from 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. at Beyondmedia Education, their fiscal sponsor. Their goal is to empower women through the use of workshops and media."
•Edited a sentence that started with "because". Originally it was  "Because of this, the group sends poetry books instead of journals and writes a note to the prisoners telling them to write their thoughts in the margins." to  "For this reason, the group sends poetry books instead of journals and writes a note to the prisoners telling them to write their thoughts in the margins.

3. Overall I felt that the main point to work on in this sandbox is how the information is sectioned. There is a lot of improvement that could be done with spacing in this since I feel that a lot of important information is clumped together into pretty large paragraphs. Spacing between different important smaller sections would highlight a lot of the info and would make the sandbox flow better visually. It would also help anyone who just wants the gits or a quick understanding of the non-profit. You all already have solid, well written paragraphs, so most of what is needed to improve is mostly adding and organizing information. Also, there is a lot more to do with the events that the Non-profit had and work the volunteers had done. Highlighting these events and going more in depth with them would help it have a better feeling of what the organization does.

4. What I have to take away from this sandbox is the flow of your writing. It was easy to go from point A to point B. I feel that our sandbox doesn't really have that much of a smooth flow between sentences and it could make it harder for someone to understand the bigger picture of our non-profit.

Drocha7 (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Jvasqu24

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The article helps provide a good illustration as to what, "Chicago Books to Women in Prison" is. The opening of the article gives all the descriptive details to ensure location and foundation of the organization. iS is to the point, and a point of factual information was also used in the beginning statement.

Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? Two phrases that help describe the subject in a clear way were used in the beginning of the article. The two words being too educate and empower. These words stood out to me the most, because they represent why the organization does what it does. By providing women in prison with books the organization is helping women become more educated and empowered.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? There aren't too many changes that need workin the article. However, one of the sections that I feel could use a bit of work is the funding section. It feels as if this section is listing a bunch of facts or bullet points instead of providing information on the funding aspect of CBWP. Also in the beginning of the article the factual information that you provided was good, but I personally believe it can be put in a better place to flow more accordingly. In the history portion of the article, Thee's a lot of great information in the article. Some of it is just a bit confusing. For example, when it was stated navigating through tight spaces making it challenging to see what books were actually available in the 650 square foot facility. With this statement it feels as if you could ask the question, IS this piece of evidence essential or important to the article's history.

Why would those changes be an improvement? For the reader it helps them want to learn about the organization more. Hearing factual information is great but too much of it may become boring. Also the flow of the article is essential in the understanding of information. With that being said I think if you moved some of the information around it may help the reader be understand the organization better.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing you could do to improve the article is make your flow of sentences better. If you put the information that goes together in a more specific grouping you can provide the reader with a better understanding.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! The expansion aspect of the article is something that could be applicable in my article that is not used. My organization had a big expansion aspect in their creation. Being able to speak on how a group became to what it is to be provides a great illustration as to how hard the individuals work.

Jvasqu24 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)