User:Justin.tsubasa/CalFresh/Eungjeonglee Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Justin.tsubasa


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Justin.tsubasa/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * CalFresh

Evaluate the drafted changes
The first subtopic, currently stated as "What is it," should be partaking the article's introduction section, appearing as the first few lines of the content. The wording of "What is it," is not precisely Wikipedia's format of the content listing.

Quoting the editor--"The program is advertised at something that 'helps to improve the health and well-being of qualified households and individuals by providing them a means to meet their nutritional needs.'"--the quotation supports the claim perfectly, yet the statement would be more developed with a source of such claim. The same goes for "all of the outreach efforts included in the CalFresh Outreach Plan, USDA reimburses 50 percent for allowable administrative program costs that are reasonable and necessary to operate approved activities," where the stats are sufficiently supporting the topic. However, it is not sourced by the editor yet. Such improvements would benefit the credibility of the article.

Not entirely sure if the current order of sections is designated, but according to most Wikipedia articles, it would be more information to place the History section before the Eligibility section.

Overall, the article is sufficient in clear and concise statements. The tone throughout the draft remained neutral. The information presented is up-to-date. The use of quotations is well-chosen yet requires corresponding references. The "Relevant sources" at the bottom of the sandbox is helpful, yet there should be in-text citations(the hyperlink [#number]). The article is educational, and the editor did a great job improving it from the primary Wikipedia page.