Talk:Brave Space Alliance

Camblb

First and foremost, the essay provides a concise definition of the issue. They defined the place "Brave Space Alliance." Furthermore, they emphasize six major areas that will provide an outline of the subject. The article's merit is that it covers the subject comprehensively without going into excessive detail. Furthermore, you avoid using long sentences, which results in clear and direct language for effective information delivery.

However, I believe this article will require at least ten additional sources. Additionally, having multiple sources might help you complete the services and partnership areas. I'm not sure if they offer services or partnerships, but if they don't, that should be mentioned. Aside from the references and the completion of the parts to further develop the piece, I believe the article is well-written. I do not see much to contribute. Camblb (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review: Tschultz1201

1. Great job having a neutral point of view and tone. The overview is a great example of how writing on Wikipedia should look, just add more basic information to it that the public should know within the first few sentences.
2. Maybe change the leadership section a little. Not sure if the quote from the former executive director. It would be an improvement by matching the tone to the rest of the page. I feel like it just doesn't flow.
3. Add more! Remain with a neutral tone. I would try to add more information to the overview of the company, feels and looks bland. Break down the partnership section. Make them shorter, easy to read paragraphs, compared to one large chunk.
4. I would add more hot links to inform the reader more as well as to engage readers on your Wikipedia page. Either add to or remove the two empty sections, services and partnerships. The first time you mention Brave Space Alliance, is where I would put the (BSA), you do that later on the page in the history section.

Tschultz1201 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review-Eliza Farley

1. Your page has good organization and flow, and the sources used are reliable.
2. The Services and Partnerships sections are empty. Is that on purpose? I would delete it and add it in later if you find evidence to add. It looks incomplete. Some sections feel redundant. Out of the 5 or so sections you have, 3 of them state that LaSaia Wade founded the organization in 2017. I feel as though this could be in one of the first sections and then find something else to replace, or just delete, the other repetitive information. The same with the Overview and the Mission. Also, I would combine the little "paragraphs" in the Mission sections to create a bigger paragraph that shows their mission as a whole. I don't think the sentences broken up is beneficial to the reader.
3. The article is very brief. I would say the best thing this page needs is more content. Dig through the news articles you found again and find more to write about but be sure to not fabricate and keep it neutral. Do they have any recent events that are notable for the Wiki page? Make sure the citations are on the outside of the period at the end of the sentence.

Efarl2 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Jenna Farkas

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

It is objective and not “PR-y”.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I’m unsure if ‘self identifies’ is necessary, I think you can just say identifies. You talk about it being for BIPOC folks, but it isn’t mentioned in the summary/lead. How come? The lead also feels like a long sentence- I would put the location as a second sentence. When in 2024 does the center aim to open? Perhaps add the “BSA” after the first time you say Brave Space Alliance. I’d add the source for the last sentence in history about number of clients. While it sounds impressive, I’d still like to know the numbers. Does the full-time team have a structured board? That’s what I assumed the Org Structure section would be about. Maybe put half the paragraph under the services section. Perhaps it’s unnecessary to name the founder in two sections. I'd label who and when in the history section and then refer to Wade as Wade after.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I see 2 sections, Services and Partnerships, with nothing underneath. Perhaps I’m looking as your editing? I think the organization could use the most attention. It seems most of the info is there, which is good.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

I see SO much progress since the first draft exercise! It looks like a lot was deleted and edited since then. It seems you took the feedback from Zach and followed what he said. Using feedback well is admirable.

Jennarachel107 (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review : Fartun

1. The article has a good Introduction. We are given a good amount of information on  what the organization offers within the community. I like how they worded this “ The organization uses a framework of mutual aid, knowledge-sharing, and community-sourced resources to achieve their stated mission.”
2. Some changes I would suggest to the author would be to change some of the wording, I feel like some things put into the article could have been worded differently, simplified almost especially when it came to vocabulary. These changes would be an improvement because it would make it easier for the reader to understand what the article is about and follow it. For example, In the history section it was written as, “ the work involves”, I changed it to “These changes include the construction and funding of a new center that aims to open in 2024”. Another change that I made is, “ These aid programs help..” instead of “These mutual aids help people”.
3. Something really important would be trying to cut out some information, mentioning certain things that were not as important to the wiki page.
4. I really liked how they bolded the name of the organization. I really like the headings and would see how I can structure my article the same way.

Fabdi3 (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review: Ava Adams

1. The history portion gives a clear and precise explanation on how BSA came to be. The organization structure also does a good job on explaining what they are known for and what they do.

2. I would suggest putting the founder of BSA, LaSaia Wade, in the history section because it seems irrelevant in the organization structure.

3. There is a section titled “Services” but nothing is written. Writing a small paragraph about their services or deleting the section all together will improve the structure of the page.

4. I like that a leadership section was added and I think that would be beneficial for my own article. Avaeadams (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sulaimaan Kabir Peer Review

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
   1. The formatting of the article is good. While it is on the shorter side, our article is too and this is a strength because I couldn’t notice a lot of flowery language. The group kept it concise. The information was presented in a very clear, neutral way.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
   1. At the beginning I would mention that the charity is located in chicago, southside neighborhood is mentioned but this might not necessarily be clear enough for those who don’t know about the city. There are a few more wiki links that can be added, I added mutual aid as a wiki link. In the last section of the history subheading, it was mentioned that the number of clients doubled, there should be a source attached to that statement I think. The services subheading is empty and can be deleted if there is nothing to add. The same can be said for partnerships.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
   1. I think they can add stuff underneath the empty headings or look to delete them and maybe consolidate them under other headings if they don't have enough information and sources.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
   1. Not having enough information is something that my team struggled with. That is something I noticed in this article that is definitely applicable to us. We had to consolidate some headings because we didn’t have enough information to leave that section on its own. We also layered sources, so if multiple sources backed up a statement we would cite both of them for that sentence.

Slmnkbr (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)