User:LizCottle/Workfare/Svg1901 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

LizCottle


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LizCottle/Workfare?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Workfare

Evaluate the drafted changes
I think your first section on "the Role of the Welfare State" is from the original article "Varients" section; I'm not sure how much you are planning to update it, but I think you could add in the U.S. persective since the whole article leans to the UK. In your section on the US, I think you could include something on the 20th century inbetween the second and third paragraph because you go from 19th century to PWORA, so there feels like a bit of a gap in what happened. Like for example, the 80s and 90s sentintiment towards "welfare queens" and people "taking advantage" of the system or something along those lines. In your section on Wacquant, I think the "(for example, painting black people as criminals)" is a good example, but might not come accross as neutral. In your section on racial discrimination, I'm not sure how immigrants being excluded from the workforce ties into workfare? Especially since most immigrants are excluded from welfare programs. I think it's relevant to issues with welfare, but I'm not sure how it relates to workfare. For your section on gender inequality, I think you might need to explain this sentence more: "Welfare states can adopt different models related to the main breadwinner: male-breadwinner model, dual breadwinner model, or dual-earner-dual carer mode." because I'm not sure people would be able to understand what that means without prior knowledge. Also I think you could explain the connection between workfare and the breadwinner model on how it burdens women. I also think you could expand more on the last sentence about the assumptions of welfare and why that lead to workfare requirements.

Overall, I think you have a lot to contribute to the original article, especially since there's not that much in the original. I think everything is relevant, but I think there are a few things where the connection to workfare isn't clear. I think that one phrase could be taken as not neutral, but other than that everything reads very neurtal and doesn't seem biased one way or another. I think you include a good amount of view points, and I like that you even include hyperlinks to the different authors you reference. The majority of your sources are scholarly, but the Heritage Foundation source is definitely not. You might want to note the bias of that article. Lastly, I think all of your information is pretty up to date. I know that what is defined as meeting work requirements has changed since TANF was passed, it might be helpful to look at updates to that.