Talk:Senang Hati Foundation

Restructure

I've restructured the article and added some more stuff, such as a more accurate history and the Jakarta Post reference. The restructure contains almost everything that was in it before, but it should make it a lot easy to embed extra information and future references. - Bilby (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

From my comments at AfD "It would do well for the article editors to research what makes this organization unique and get the lede to spell that out quickly and clearly. Then some understanding of what they do and how as well as the history would help." I would:

1. . Rework and rename "Rationale" section, this seems a bit OR-ish; I suggest moving this somewhere in the history section, it might not even need a section title bu if it does then maybe "background".
2. . Clarify "The organization's stated goals are", date this and ref both in text and citation, "from a 2007 version of their website" or "from a 2008 news report" so we know who is stating this and of when.
3. . Rename "Services" to "Activities"
4. . Merge "Operation" content, if travelers is prominent, which would make sense, IMHO, this might be best in the lede and also woven into the history. The other sentence can go into "Activities".
5. . Add wikilinks as appropriate.
6. . Rework the lede once more to ensure it is an adequate stand-alone summary of the article.
   

Good work so far! Benjiboi 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep "Rationale", although I certainly agree that "Background" is a better name, and your reworking seems to have fixed most of the problems. I also agree that it needs better references to avoid OR, but they should be easy enough to find. I'd like to keep "Operation", and I've renamed it to better clarify the purpose of the section. My reasoning was that with a non-profit, the five things I want to know are what they do, why they do it, vision, history, and sources of funding/how they operate. But if there's a template which would work better, or even an alternative structure, I don't see any problem with changing it. This isn't my area of expertise (in spite of the Uni). :) I left the shop there, as it was a source of funding, but it has a brief mention in Activities as well. That aside, I renamed "Services" to "Activities" (in spite of my awful spelling). I didn't have a year for the aims, but I turned to the website for that one (I suspect vision statements should come from primary sources), and hopefully I made the source clearer. And I've rewritten the intro a bit - I'm not sure if it is enough, but it should be a start.

Hopefully that's closer to what you described. I don't know anything about the topic (I'm here because of WP:RESCUE and Jack), so I'm limited to what I can find online. But at this stage I wouldn't mind seeing a photo, an expansion of history (I can probably add a bit, but not much), possibly with the travelers section embedded in it (as suggested), and a cleanup/expansion on activities.

As an aside, I think the tone is probably better now, but I've left the tag in place as it may need more cleaning up. - Bilby (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Kudos all around. Article looks very nice. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)