Talk:American Cancer Society
First (instructor) evaluation comments
Here are some suggestions for further improvements to your encyclopedia entry draft. I'm going to stick to the sections you've already started developing; keep in mind, though, that you still need to fill in the others as well as the related articles, bibliography, and external links subpages.
- Rather than quote the ACS's mission statement verbatim, you might revise the intro to explain what the organization is all about in your own words. (Same goes for the definition.)
- You might make the "History" section a bit more reader-friendly by dividing it into subsections. It might be interesting to try to dig up and discuss some of the organization's early publications. You might also try to explain why and how the organization was reorganized in 1945 rather than just state that it was. Finally, the section doesn't seem to have much to say about the organization's development since the late 1940s, something that might be corrected by consulting additional sources beyond the ACS History webpage.
- Again in the "Current activities and objectives" section, you might break up the discussion a bit rather than keep it all in one paragraph. Probably the most logical reorganization would be to discuss each of the four categories you identify in its own paragraph or subsection.
- In addition to discussing the overall structure of the organization, the "Organizational Structure" section might include some discussion of the ACS's leadership positions and their current incumbents.
- Rather than present a list of "highlights" in the "Achievements" section, you might discuss each one in a more elaborate paragraph format. You might explain more about the significance of each achievement and say a bit more about what the ACS did to accomplish it.
- Throughout the entry, there are many terms that could be placed within double square brackets the first time they appear in order to create internal links (like you did in the intro for interest group); e.g. cancer, James Watson, etc.
Shamira Gelbman 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Second (peer) evaluation comments
Hi this is vince, I think your page is pretty good. You use a lot of information and do a very good job explaining everything and you include a large number of facts. The only problem I think there is with this is that it becomes difficult to read at some points. I also think you need to create more citizendium links within your texts ( make key words or terms highlighted). I like your use of a quote in the beginning but I'm not sure that it is properly cited. You explain your topic very well and the page seems to be very useful, however, you still need to fill in some more sections. You need to fill in related articles, bibliography, and external links subpages. Overall, good job and good page.