Talk:Imerman Angels

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Femachisma, Tsundra, Hherra2, Covfefe22, Gsalaz6, Mapzo. Peer reviewers: Michaelcera1, Cnwaokocha, Amelendez97, Ccrane5, Kmatia2, Circlechen002.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article is neutral overall, gives a good mission statement and it is clear to understand what the mission of this organization is about. All the links for the Wikipedia page work and they do support the claims that are made in the article. The article is not biased either, it simply states the facts that are supported from their references. The heading “2012-Current” is a bit misleading because the organization was founded in 2006, so it brings into question what was going on for 6 years during that time. Also in that heading the last sentence just seems awkward and unfitting. There should be more history on how it was started up and if there were any problems in getting the organization started. I think these changes could really make a positive influence on the article. Kmatia2 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

More Peer Review

The link between citations and general information was constructed very well. These links add to the flow of the article. It doesn't come off as choppy and each section appears to be well written in terms of presenting the most important information. I noticed in the lead the use of the word, struck when introducing Jonny Imerman and his battle with testicular cancer. I think a better word would be, diagnosed. Using the word struck makes that particular sentence come off as storytelling as opposed to encyclopedia style writing. Also, the lead and the mission sound a bit redundant. The third and fourth sentences in the lead could be taken out since they're stated in the mission. Other than this, I don't read the article as being biased. The article has great content and gives a clear representation of who the Imerman Angles are, and what they do.

You guys may have seen this video already, but I think it's worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aizQYzx4INM --Michaelcera1 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Femachisma (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

More Peer Review

Your article is neutral and the lead gives an overall understanding of the importance of the non-profit organization. I think that the sections are organized but the heading "2012-current" is confusing. The headings are in a good order overall. There could be more on the history of the organization. For example, when you mention the information under 2012-current, what about the years from 2006-2012. Maybe you could address the start up of the organization if there is information on it. The article reflects the references well, and all the references work. All the information and facts have a reference to them. I think one thing to look out for is keeping your sentences concise and straight to the point. Some sentences I think could be broken up into two sentences, they were a bit long. Reading through your article again and paying attention to detail will help you perfect it. Overall I think you are on track to a great article, good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccrane5 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

More Peer Review

This is a very good and thought out Wikipedia article. The lead was very good because it gave readers an overall and unbiased description of Imerman Angels. This is very important since readers are more likely to only read the lead and use the information as desired. To improve this article I suggest that you clarify the statement in the lead and history sections in regards to the amount of Angel Mentors. In the lead it says over 4,000 angels but in the history section it says 6,000. It is best to be consistent throughout the entire article. Therefore you can either use 4,000 angel mentors in both sections, 6,000 angel mentors in both sections, or research the current number of angel members that belong to this organization. Overall, this article is in a great state and I am excited to read your finish product.

---

Crystal Nwaokocha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnwaokocha (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

More Peer review. Imerman’s Angels

A lead section that is easy to understand： Overall, this is a good Wikipedia article, it is written in plain language and easy to follow.

A clear structure: I like how your group made the structure. I especially like the “history” section, and how you guys introduce Imerman’s Angels’ milestone events steps by steps. However, the “mission” section overlap something from the general introduction part and “organizational structure” part, I think you guys could revised them a little bit.

Balanced coverage I think the article could become longer and with more detail to describe about the organization in general. According to the reading, I believe “Imerman’s Angels” is a large or middle large size international non-for-profit organization. Around year 2015 to present time, there has a total of 6,000 mentors in 65 countries, and I want to know more about it. As a result, I think the article needs more work.

Neutral content Yes, no mention of personal opinions and apparent biases. No claims made in the article. However, it might contain too much positive information in the text. For example,

“Imerman now spends his time meeting with patients, angels and donors. He holds and speaks at many events and fundraisers while also living a vegan and alcohol free lifestyle.” The sentence up there is from “Organization Structure”, the introduction of Jonny Imerman, and this sentence can be removed since it is not relate the topic.

Reliable sources Some of the sources are PDF document and official reports that released by the organization. Some of the sources are from news website and official website. I think most of the sources are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circlechen002 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)