User:Michelleho1100/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program/Kjwonglam Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Michelleho1100
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Michelleho1100/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes

Content evaluation
Content is solid and informative.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone and balance. It states information as it is, but also talks about possibilities (as in section "Diet quality").

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, within the last 10 years
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
They are solid.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No spelling errors or major grammatical errors. However, it is slightly jarring to go between "SNAP" and "CalFresh." Perhaps consider explaining what CalFresh is (since it's also only for California) and its relation to SNAP; midway through the article another contributor briefly mentions it, but it would be helpful to explain earlier.
 * Just a small thing, but the citations go after the period :)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
The organization is good. Some of the content in "Student Eligibility" provides more background than other existing sections in the "Eligibility." It almost seems out of place. That being said, it's important information that goes beyond purely listing the eligibility requirements. Is there another section this background could go under? It's interesting that the current SNAP article doesn't have a section for barriers/complications to qualifying for SNAP or for SNAP in general.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The current article doesn't address college students much at all, so the added content is very informative and adds a more complete picture of who SNAP impacts.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is very well-researched and detailed. It also adds well to the content already published in the article. I learned more about SNAP!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * See my comments above. Overall, it looks good!