Talk:One Tail at a Time

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): Studentnumberunknown, Jillxkettman, Jchoi209, Yuricas3541. Peer reviewers: Bdivito10, Aorteg36, Elluna99, Jmandernach18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review by Aorteg36

1. First off, I like that their sandbox looks like a legitimate Wikipedia article with its table of contents and infobox. The contents featured in the table function accordingly with each section when clicked on. The sections include an overview of the organization’s history, its programs, events, and even includes a politics section which I thought was an interesting addition. These sections are organized well and the dates are presented in a chronological manner, specifically the events section. Every sentence, if not every other sentence, is cited accordingly to a source with the exception of their second source. There are multiple sources used and the article doesn't lead towards one single point of view. In terms of a phrase that describes the subject in a clear way, the second sentence “The shelter’s purpose is to treat sick and injured animals from local city shelters before entering an adoption program” drove the point home.
2. As mentioned earlier, the inclusion of a politics section was an interesting addition, However, I feel that by mentioning that “Maldonado did not support the zoning change”, it leans away from being neutral. That sentence is followed by “The office of Mayor Rahm Emanuel aided One Tail at a Time in finding a new building” which also adds to the feeling that the article is departing from a neutral standpoint. They don’t have to exclude these from the sandbox but they do need to word these sentences differently in order to maintain a neutral standpoint. Also, their lead is very specific and heavy in details which takes over a significant portion of the article. Although it doesn’t repeat anything that is mentioned afterward, the lead is longer than the information written in the history and programs section. The lead would work best if it were shorter and straight to the point. By changing the history section to the background and history section, this would allow them to move the additional information from the lead to this section. The lead is the first thing that a viewer sees when clicking on the article and it should state the most important information about the organization. The events section mentions that there was an event in which multiple restaurants donated a percentage of their sales to benefit the organization. It then lists the multiple restaurants that volunteered and although this information does deserve to be placed in the events section, the presentation of said information looks out of place. “The restaurants that participated during this year were: Upton’s Breakroom (2054 W. Grand); Native Foods (1023 W. Belmont); Wishbone West Loop (1001 W. Washington); Old Town Social (455 W. North); Reno (2607 N. Milwaukee); Wyler Road (3581 W. Belden).” The addition of the restaurant addresses add no significant value towards the article. They could just mention that multiple restaurants across the city participated or if they decide to keep the list, then just listing the names would be enough.
3. Proofreading would benefit the article because there are many spelling errors throughout the article. The two quotes above were originally misspelled but I edited them by changing “no” to “not” and also correcting the mayor’s name from “Robert” to “Rahm”. I also added a header to their list of references so that it can complete the look of a finished article. Their second source is missing and without it, the organization’s 2016 revenue is not backed up by any evidence. The same can be said for the organization’s 2016 expenses since there isn't even a citation listed for it.
4. Overall, the article is organized well which is something I cannot say about my group’s article. We’re still trying to figure out what information is appropriate to place in the sections we have for our organization. As a result, our sandbox still looks like a sandbox, while this looks like an actual wiki page. We definitely need to think of what sections we can add to our article since we have only two sections at the moment. For our events section, we listed each event through bullet points but after reviewing your format, I’ll discuss with my group members to see if this would be the better approach for it. The politics section really stood out to me because I wouldn’t have taken into consideration how politics could potentially play a role in affecting these non profit organizations in one way or another. From the looks of it, my group members seem to agree that we could apply a politics section for our non profit if we find enough information to justify it.

Aorteg36 (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review-Bdivito10

1. I liked how the article provided exact details to the Wikipedia post. An example of this occurred in the first paragraph when the article mentioned “One Tail at a Time’s mission is to end pet homelessness and make pet ownership a joyful and accessible experience for all and estimates it would house 1,000 dogs and cats by the end of 2019.” To validate their point the editors added a citation to the statement, which validated the organization's goals. I have pushed my group as well to add as many citations as possible in our Wikipedia edit as well because I always like to know that any claims or facts we try to promote are backed by a citation. I was really impressed at how in depth the One Tail at a Time Wikipedia article went. One Tail at a Time is a great organization however, it is not as well known as some other animal non profit organization’s, but I have to give the editors credit for being able to find so much in depth information on One Tail at a Time.

2. The one phrase that made the subject clear is when the editors declared that the shelter’s goal is to treat sick and injured animals from Chicago’s shelters. From that point on the editors were able to add much more information on the organization and that statement provided the ability to promote One Tail at a Time’s goals for animals as well as various events the shelter has done in its history.

3. This page is off to an amazing start. I recommend two changes both having to do with the history paragraph. First, the sentence, “And in 2019 One tail at a time also went to rescue dogs after the hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas” should move to the events section of the edit. Also, I would like to see more information added to the history section.

4. Those changes would be an improvement because to me Hurricane Dorian was a major event and the help One Tail at a Time provided could be promoted as a big event for the organization. By the time Hurricane Dorian hit the organization was already up and running, so the hurricane did not have any role in getting the organization was up and running, which makes me believe that the story behind One Tail at a Time helping animals affected by Hurricane Dorian would be a better fit under the events section. I feel that the history section should be dedicated to stories and events that helped get the organization running in its early days not events that the organization helped in once fully established, those events should be included the events section.

Also, having a little more history listed in the history section would help because right now there is only one true history event listed in the history section, which is the organization posting a picture of a scared and injured dog, which helped launch One Tail at a Time. If more information such as the data containing how many pets were originally housed by One Tail at a Time were added to the article the history section would stand out a bit more. I would recommend that the history section be added onto even if it's only another sentence or two because it would give readers a better look into how One Tail at a Time came about and what their early days were like.

5. As mentioned, the One Tail at a Time article is off to a great start and I can honestly say only minor improvements are needed. I would recommend that the authors read through the article and make sure that the sentences are in appropriate places I did not notice any more out of place outside of the one sentence regarding One Tail at a Time’s history that was previously mentioned. The one thing I recommend is reading through the sentences. My group has to do the same thing because sometimes what might make sense for a sentence location at first may not make sense once the article is reread.

6. I noticed that the One Tail at a Time’s editors had all their information cited, often with multiple citations to back up one sentence. I would like my group to do the same thing because as I mentioned, I like to know whatever is being said has some sort of citation to back it up because citations make arguments stronger. I also noticed how One Tail at a Time kept their history and events separate from one another and that is something my group is currently trying to do as well. One item I really enjoyed was the politics section on One Tail at a Time’s Wikipedia page. That was a very interesting section to me and it was unique to see what politicians and political events had an effect on the organization and a politics section is something I may push my group to look into as well. Overall, I believe that there are quite a few similarities between One Tail at a Time’s Wikipedia page setup and my organization Cradles to Crayons Wikipedia page setup. It was nice to see how other editors with a similar setup are handling their edits.

Bdivito10 (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Jmandernach18

1. This wikipedia page is filled with a ton of information on One Tail at a Time, including insightful information on there history since 2008, the programs, events, and the politics within the non profit. First off, I must say that you have a lot of good information with a solid amount of different topic points. I really liked the order that you put the topics in as well because it goes in a good order that makes sense to the reader. You did a really good job with explaining the Politics with One Tail at a Time not being able to buy the Chicago location. The chronological order of the story made it very easy to understand and did not leave me confused after reading it. I also really liked the Overviews introduction where it directly explains what the non profit does along with their main purpose as a dog shelter. This page does look very legit when looking at it and there are no eye sores that pop out when reading this. The box at the top if filled in with a lot of information including the revenue and expenses, which I know are not easy to find without doing a lot of research. The Events section also pops out to me due to the immense amount of information and different events that One Tail at a Time has done, the only thing is to maybe organize it a little more so its easier to read. Overall the article is filled with good information, but needs a little more organization for the readers.
2. This wikipedia page included a lot of spelling errors, redundancy on certain topics, and also on run on sentences. When going through the first paragraph I found a lot of small spelling errors. Some sentences such as, “The original adoption center in Bucktown houses homeless dogs available for adoption” comes off slightly confusing. Since Bucktown was never introduced in the beginning I did not understand what it was, along with there being two times in the sentence where it says “adoption”. I would recommend introducing the locations of One Tail at a Time first and then talk about it in detail. Another example is in the Politics section when it said, “ The next center One Tail at a Time looked into is a city building, located on 2460 W. Cortland St., in Logan Square . Saying “the next center” before One Tail at a Time makes it slightly confusing. Possibly saying “ One Tail at a Time also looked into a city building in Chicago, located at…” . Another critique could be to possibly add a Chicago section because there were numerous times throughout the page that Chicago facts were disperser, but it might look cleaner to just put them in one separate section. In programs you state at the end that they are “very active” on social media, but you dont add on to it. I would recommend adding more about donations coming in through social media like Facebook or Twitter. The last thing is that in the history section you mention Parmesan the dog, but im still not sure how he relates to the “history” of the company as it comes off as a random fact about the company. Possibly you can further explain that. Overall very solid foundation, I would just make sure to polish the articles up and add what is lacking in information. EDITS: I fixed up some simple spelling and sentence structure errors, especially in the History and Overview. For example, I fixed the Hurricane Dorian line at the end of the Overview. I also added some links to the companies that you mentioned so people can click on them if they want to do further research.
3. To improve the article it could be organized in a cleaner way. For example, the event section is sometimes all over the place. Even a simple bullet point would help a lot in the events section to make it easier for the reader to understand. There are also some spelling and comma errors within the paper. I would make sure to read through the whole thing and fix some errors with spelling and sentence order. I would also add some information with certain topics such as the NBA sports Chicago dog draft. It ended very quickly and I think some additional information would help a lot. I also noticed that the references are a little unorganized. For example, the second reference has no information, it's just a “^” symbol. Just fix up some of the petty little errors and it will be much better.
4. I really liked how you organized the page! I like the placement of the contents box along with the box on the top. You also have much more information than we have, and this inspired me to add some additional information to our non profit wiki page, such as a Politics section. You also have a lot of strong and reliable sources from trustworthy sites, such as NBC Chicago, ABC7, and the Chicago Tribune. All of the references are very strong and reliable, which I feel like my site is missing. Good job so far! The page was a very interesting read, just clean up little details.

Jmandernach18 (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Elluna99

1. This sandbox looks more like an article than a sandbox, which is great. The table of contents is a nice addition and is something that I forgot to even think about for my own article. There is a lot of information present, there is just a couple areas where I recommend moving some sentences to another section or taking them out completely. Besides that, I really like the sections this article has, they're not overlapping and are useful in presenting the information in an efficient way. The sourcing for the article is great too, some sentences have multiple citations on them, which will add a lot to the overall credibility.
2. Including a Politics section is not a bad idea, but I suggest being very careful about how sentences are worded here in order to avoid any kind of bias. The part about Alderman Maldonado not approving One Tail at a Time buying the building might be a part to take a closer look at. After reading the introduction, I recommend cleaning it up by moving some of the information to the History or Programs part of the article. Doing this will make the intro more concise while making the History and Programs sections more dense in information as it does feel a little bit lacking. As of now, the intro is longer than both those sections. A few sentences feel a bit redundant or feel a little biased. Taking them out will help the overall flow of the article. I removed the sentence about former Mayor Rahm Emmanuel's office continuing to assist One Tail at a Time with their search for a building because I felt that sentence was no longer relevant to the article as there is now a new mayor in office. But looking at it again now, I can see this sentence being placed in the history section rather than being completely taken out. Personally, I would leave it out, but I can't see this harming the overall article if it were included. The same can be said about the sentence I removed in the introduction, a fact like that does not belong in the introduction but can go in perhaps the History or Events section. But again, personally I would not include and it would not harm the article if it is included.
3. The most important changes that can be made to the article right now are ones that involve properly sorting the information to its proper section while avoiding redundancy. Additionally, making sure that the Politics section gives equal representation to the multiple sides of an issue. Also, general proofreading for spelling errors and for any misplaced sentences will go a long away with the final polishing of the article.
4. When I first looked at the article the table of contents drew my eyes first and it made me realize that i haven’t even thought of putting one in my own article. Overall the organization was something my group’s article can benefit from, as we are a bit scattered in our organization. Something this article did that mine doesn’t currently do is citing multiple sources for a single fact. When searching for our research articles, my group realized that a lot of information from these sources overlap, which is not a bad thing. Seeing the multiple citations on something makes for more credible information.

Elluna99 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Jillxkettman

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) 16:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.251.254 (talk)