Talk:Chicago Foundation for Women

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 February 2019 and 12 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jml1996, RoseChampagne, TTrriisshaa, TinaD123, Msmit70, Ekarns2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fraterseraphicus Peer Review

Overall I would say that the article has a very nice and clear structure to it. It is very easy to navigate which will help people to learn about the organization you are writing about. I have made some small edits regarding spelling and grammar, but overall a great first draft! I would also like to make note of the following

• Lead Section: Your lead is clearly written and provides a nice amount of information about CFW without doubling up on information in the body of the article. The last sentence may need slight restructuring to clarify if there are other organization besides the MacArthur Foundation, and the Eleanor Neal Foundation who fund events, or the MacArthur Foundation and the Eleanor Neal Foundation are the 'other' organizations which help fund CWF.
• History: Again, I like the structure here. It seems helpful that you have broken down the history of the CFW into the South Side Giving Circle and LBTQ Giving Council. However, at times it feels more like you are reporting what the organizations do as opposed to presenting a history of the organization. I would say the content is great, but may be more fitting in a different category.
• Events: Under "Annual Luncheon and Symposium" it seems like the use of 'they' and 'theirs' seems to disrupt the flow of the sentence making it a little difficult to follow. Similarly, under "Annual International Women's Day Dance" the second sentence needs a little tweaking to clearly state the intended meaning.
• Partners: Very clearly laid out. Very well done in keeping $ notation consistent on the page and with the MoS. The last sentence in this section does seem to be a little biased, nor does it appear to be immediately backed up by the cited page as CFW is only mentioned when listed as a Partner.
• MacArthur Foundation: Very good, not sure what to adjust here.
• Sources: Sources are largely independent and secondary and all of the external links worked! The only concern would be the source for Groundswell's Catalyst Fund which is coming from the fund's own website. I did find a few interesting articles that may be helpful for the article like this one from the Chicago Tribune and one talking about their efforts to bring awareness to notable women leaders in the Sun Times.

--Fraterseraphicus (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

TinaD123 Peer Review

Great start to your Wikipedia article! Your information is well cited, easy to read and organized efficiently although I think that the South Side Giving Circle and LBTG Giving Council would be better suited under a “Programs Section” vice the “History Section”. I also have a few additional suggestions that you may want to consider in making the article even better:

• Opening Section – I recommend you add a few descriptive words that briefly clarify what kind of opportunities and resources that CFW creates for women. Is it women’s shelters, counseling, medical care? Also, the last sentence is a little vague as to who the other organizations are that donate money to CFW. Perhaps just mention the most significant donors.

• History Section – The first sentence provides a good start to how the organization began, but the following sentences don’t tell me anything about how or why CFW associated with the global women’s funding movement nor how the organization and their goals evolved over time.

• South Side Giving Circle Subsection – I recommend you add the date that when the South Side Giving Circle program was started and provide more information about what kind of aid this program offers to black women/girls within the South Side Chicago community.

• LBTQ Giving Council Subsection – I would reword the first sentence to clarify what kind of event that the LBTQ Giving Council “held” or “hosted”. Was it a parade? A concert? A conference? Also, I would definitely reword the second sentence, saying they were the first group in Chicago to support LGBTQ is very vague. There are many types of groups. Please define what kind. Also clarify how they supported them? Did they make a public announcement declaring their support?

• Events Section– Maybe a short lead-in sentence or two should be added here to introduce this section

• Annual Luncheon and Symposium Subsection – In first sentence, please clarify what kind of resources they provide for participants. I assume from reading the rest of the paragraph that the resources are informational/educational/awareness related.

• Annual International Women’s Day Dance Subsection – A few sentence structure and grammar errors in the paragraph that need fixing. Also in the last sentence would replace/reword “In the past” with a date to clarify the timeframe that the dances taking place at the Museum of Puerto Rican Arts and Cultural. Also, are the dances still happening there or do they do them someplace else now?

• The Pink Hat Run Subsection- Not sure the cancelling due to rain/lighting is significant enough. Recommend just focusing on the fact that The Pink Hat Run has been supporting GFW since 2017.

• Impact Awards Subsection – Recommend reword/clarify last sentence.

• Partners Section – Recommend a few lead-in sentences here to introduce the section.

• Elanor Foundation Subsection – Would clarify who decided to merge the Eleanor and CFW organizations.

• Catalyst Fund Subsection – This paragraph has a few biased words such as “teamed up” and “greatly”. Recommend reword with more neutral words.

• MacArthur Foundation Section – Short, sweet. No recommendations.

• Grants Subsection – Is this a subsection of the MacArthur Foundation? It seems like it should be a main section. Otherwise the information seems pretty straightforward regarding grants that CFW has awarded.

Other recommendations – Ensure you go through the entire document and add links to significant names, organizations, businesses/corporations that already have Wikipedia pages. I added a few links to a few words that I found had Wikipedia pages as small edits. I also found a source that may be of use to you. It's article that was published in the The Journal of Pan African Studies (vol 1, no 7, March 2007) about the F Series program, a collaborative program between the CFW and the Columbia College Center for the Study of Gender in the Media and Arts. Not sure if this is a secondary or primary news source, but it could help in gaining a better understanding of CFW's services and programs. Here is the link http://jpanafrican.org/docs/vol1no7/WomenOfColorFacingRacism_JPASvol1no7.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinaD123 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

TinaD123 (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Tina Dexter 3 April 2019 TinaD123 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Riim22 Peer Review

I really like the starting and outlined information about CFW. All the information is cited properly. overall you guys did a great job.

• History: I would not able to get enough information about the history of CFW. I would suggest you add content or explain the agenda of this organization as I couldn’t pull out much information.
• Programs or history? The other thing I notice that I couldn’t differentiate that either South Side Giving Circle and LBTQ Giving Council fall under the category of history or different programs? I recommend if you could add one more Heading for programs and mention how many program CFW has and then explain further would help the reader to understand what programs CFW has.
• South Side Giving Circle: very brief and short. I would suggest that if you could mention more about the history as you mentioned about LBTQ Giving council and what was the need to establish the circle only for black women.
• LBTQ Giving Council: I am just confused is that LBTQ or LBTG? Can you tell us why this is the first organization by adding a notable reference? I could see some bias word like “biggest”, please reconsider it. please mention who awarded them money and why? What are 12 organizations and programs? Maybe add more information or reword the sentence.

Events: maybe add one sentence or two to introduce how many events CFW organize every year.

• Annual Luncheon and Symposium: well-structured but the first sentence has too much information. Maybe if you can elaborate on what resources they provide and if they have any agenda per year?
• Annual International Women’s Day Dance: I really like the clean neutral tone but may be add more background and what other resources??
• The Pink Hat Run: nicely laid out but I recommend if you can add purpose to support LBTQ community here would be better. The money raised only for CFW?
• Impact awards: please reconsider the last sentence.
• Partners: Again, if you are using heading add a brief lead.
• Eleanor Foundation: well explained.
• Catalyst Fund: Resources for Women of Color in Reproductive Justice: recommend: reword “greatly”
• MacArthur Foundation: precise and well written and I really like how you introduced the heading which needs to be done in section of events and partners as well.
• Grants: may be mention why CFW nominate them for grant try to be more specific.
• Citation Recommendation: citations are good combination of independent, secondary sources and easy to access. I would recommend if you can add more citation to significant information instead of last sentence of paragraph and may be consider using more sources for Grants section instead of relying on one.

--Riim22 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Riim22

Notes

Hi! I have some notes on the draft:

• Make sure that your sentences don't start too similarly to the others, as this can make the sentences seem redundant.
• Watch out for typos, as there are some places that need spaces.
• This could use more independent sourcing. Be careful of announcements of funding, as many can be reprinted press releases, which are considered to be primary sources. Things like this are considered to be routine notifications of events and cannot show notability. If the organization is only briefly mentioned the source will be considered a trivial source in most cases.

This is generally OK, but the sourcing is the biggest concern. --Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)