User:Abbyroman/Social programs in the United States/Shafataryan Peer Review

General info
Abbyroman
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Abbyroman/Social programs in the United States:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Social programs in the United States:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - I'm not sure where this draft is going to be inserted, thus, I can't entirely confirm or evaluate the lead. Additionally, I don't think the lead was included in the edits of this draft. The content itself seems to be otherwise clear to follow, as the introdcutory sentence talks about the 'changed legal immigrants' eligibility for public health insurance in two ways', then lists them and proceeds to go over their impacts over subsequent paragraphs.

Content

Is the added content relevant to the topic? - Yes, the topic seems very relevant as it contains information about social programs, particularly health insurance for legal immigrants in the United States, and their impacts.

Is the added content up-to-date? - It's unclear how current the content since there's no bibliography.

Does the article address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it discuss topics related to historically underrepresented populations? - Yes, it certainly does. By focusing on social programs, it addresses underrepresented and minority populations who often benefit from such programs.

Tone and Balance

Is the added content neutral in tone? - The tone remains neutral over the course of the draft, as it simply presents information about social programs that were implemented in 1996 and the fallout from those programs.

Are there overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints? - The viewpoint seems to be neutral with no clear bias.

Sources and References

No bibliography.

Organization

Is the added content well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, it's easy to read. Reviewing it aloud could help identify any conflicts or errors.

Does the added content contain any grammatical or spelling errors? - The following sentences were a bit difficult to follow: "A study by the Urban Institute encapsulated this effect on the immigrants of the city of Los Angeles County. Applications that were approved by legal noncitizen families for Medi-Cal and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families dropped 71 percent between January 1996 and January 1998. And there was no decline among citizens." I got the overall meaning, I think, however, it did require some active effort to go over the first couple sentences and understand them. Additionally, you could include a transition between the second and last sentence. You could possibly consider reducing the size of some of these sentences, or adding more punctuation in certain places to make them a bit more easy-to-follow.

Overall Impressions

Has the added content improved the overall quality of the article? - It's difficult to evaluate this question, as it's still unclear where the information is going to be inserted. However, the information seems useful and informative.

What are the strengths of the content added? The content's strength lies in how it evaluates the impact of the 1996 policy/Act, as it explains the direct impact of such policies.