Talk:Rebuild Foundation

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): Harmoneemorgan, Qnzk, Misspaulinac. Peer reviewers: Studentnumberunknown, Jillxkettman, Jchoi209, Yuricas3541.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review [of edits by a group of University of Illinois Chicago students]

1. What the article does well in is gathering a variety of reliable sources. It also has a good amount of information especially on the locations established which is very important since that's what the nonprofit does. Finally, it really tries to be neutral and to not force a singular viewpoint. I was really impressed with the amount of sentences that were neutral and had a source a the end; no changes needed.

2. However, the sentences need to reviewed. There is a lot of repetition and information is disconnected or in a wrong order. (I did some editing on the Art Bank and Dorchester paragraphs). This will really help because it will make it easier to read and help with understanding the information.

3. The most important improvements I recommend is to meet the Wikipedia requirements. In regards to the leading sentence, I was very confused because it did not preview the rest of the article and it did not weigh in the important parts of the article. This is important because a clear preview gives a clear structure of the rest of the article. For example, the locations were not mentioned at first so I did not understand how they related to the nonprofit until after I finished reading them. Another requirement is, that each sentence needs the source of which it came from and for then to be add at the end of EACH sentence. This is important because if it's not credible enough it can be removed. Finally, there needs to be a balance of content. This is successful when it comes to the locations but it is not balanced when it comes to the subheadings. Some subheadings had one sentences while others had more.

4. Overall, you have a great skeleton for the on profits wiki page and its filled with information. And by reviewing this article, it has helped me too because I also need to review my sentences structures; mine are too disconnected. And, I need more sources from different sites to avoid having a singular viewpoint. Yuricas3541 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Studentnumberunknown David Miotto

1.In a well-written summary, The article "The Rebuild Foundation" has the appropriate information in its first paragraph about what defines this non-profit. However, its definition says that they are dedicated to "transforming buildings and neighborhoods", and although I agree with the "transforming buildings" part, perhaps I'd rephrase the "transforming neighborhoods", because I think that it takes more than just transforming a few buildings to transform a neighborhood.

2.This article is well-written as it highlights the different buildings that the foundation has renovated and transformed. However, some information was omitted on the Stony Islands Art Bank. Although The Rebuild Foundation did in fact bought the Stony Islands Art Bank for $1, they omitted the catch to get that building at that price was to raise $3.7 million to renovate the building. Although the article does state the fact that Gates raised funding for the project by selling marble blocks, my critique comes more from the mere fact that they should note what the catch was to pay $1 for the building.

3.This article also highlights The Rebuild Foundation's awards, and programs that help those that are looking to get involved within the south side arts community and explore their creativity. The article mentions the different programs and classes that are offered to those looking to get involved in film and media.This article is grounded on really good sources while maintaining a neutral point of view that meets Wikipedia's criteria. Additionally, this article has all the necessary hyperlinks that pertain to necessary terms or individuals involved in this project.

4.Overall, this article provides all the pertinent details about "The Rebuild Foundation", its accolades, programs, and the proper information on its info box. Besides a couple of grammatical changes I made to this article, I would not change much. Although, it has a very good structure, perhaps it can be improved with recent or up-date news on the foundation and its works, as well as mentioning any upcoming renovating projects. Great job guys, well done! David MiottoDM (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)DM (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

1. The article does a really good job of going in depth with the different projects of this organization and sets a clear understanding on what the organization does.

2. It was nice to see the different sections of programs and awards that were related to the different housing projects.

3. The group should add the different politics that are related to the organization and research different points of views that people have towards this organization.

These changes would be good because they would improve a non-bias representation of the organization.

4. I think that the most important improvement needed in the article is adding citations to all of the literature. There are many times that the literature doesn't have a source attached to it.

5. I noticed there were a lot of hyperlinks that were linked to other wikipedia pages and I think that my group and I can apply that for our own edits!

Jchoi209 (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Great article and a good choice of a non-profit! The thing that impressed me most about your wiki page Is the amount of information in each project that they have created. It is also very well worded and does not show signs of bias. This is very good because the guidelines of Wikipedia are followed throughout your page for the Rebuild Foundation

2. I think that the subsections are good but I don’t think they are really necessary. The paragraphs before awards and programs are very strong and I think adding awards and programs into the main paragraph works just as well! The subtitle sections all have a little information, which is why I think it would be better if they were all just put together. The small amount of information looks a little uneven. If more information was found about these awards and programs for each, then I feel like they could be separate sections but with little information, I think they can go in the main paragraphs.

3. The most important thing the authors could do to improve the article is citing. Most of the page is very well cited, but there are a few that are missing some. The sentences I noticed that need citing are the last two sentences of the Archive house and the beginning paragraph in general.

4. I think what can be applied to our own article is hyperlinking other wiki pages in our own article. We have not done that so far within our page and by doing this on our page, it will make it stronger.Jillxkettman (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

COI problem

I added this article to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arts_and_entertainment_work_group_articles_needing_attention. The Theaster Gates article appears to have the same problem. (See Talk:Theaster Gates.) Acwilson9 (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC) ; Acwilson9 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)