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 been developing, but keep in mind that you still need to fill in the others as well as the required subpages.
- While you might provide the listing currently in the "History" section in a "Timelines" subpage (optional), you should stick to essay style writing on the main article page. Along those lines, you might add additional subsections after "Founding" to chronicle the HF's development since the 1970s.
- In the "Founding" subsection, you might provide more explanation as to the historical context in which HF was founded, its founders' motivations, and the actions they took to get the think tank off the ground.
- You might begin the "Current objectives and activities" section with an overview sentence or two. In the "Healthcare" subsection, you might want to be careful about "dating" your entry -- i.e. writing it in language that will make it seem outdated to future readers.
- You might consider formatting a lot of the information in the "Organizational structure" as tables rather than plain text. You might also say a bit more about what the different divisions are responsible for.
- The "Achievements" section is off to a good start, but you might elaborate more on each point you mention there. For example, you might explain more about the HF's "huge role" in Reagan's dealings with the Contras.
- Throughout the entry, you might put double square brackets (i.e. [[ ]]) around key terms to create links to related Citizendium entries; e.g. think tank, Edwin Feulner
Shamira Gelbman 14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Second (peer) evaluation comments
Overall you have a good amount completed and for the most part it is pretty thorough.
There is probably room to expand on the groups objectives and activites.
Perhaps give more details about some of the specific achievements of the Heritage foundation.
The public perception and controversies page obviously needs to be filled in, as I'm sure that there is at least some sort of controversy that has arisen throughout the foundation's existence.
Perhaps you could put more spaces in the history section between dates as it might make it a little easier to read.
The organizational structure section was a bit confusing, maybe consider reworking the format a little bit.
The areas that need improvement are all relatively minor, for the most part you are doing a good job, just continue to flesh it out a little bit and you will be fine.
Other relevant CZ work
Do note the Related Articles page, which has been going in the background as part of work on political networking. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)