User:Osa225/RI Works Program/Regoc14 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) Osa225
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Osa225/RI Works Program

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The author does a great job of briefly summarizing the topic as well as outlining the article's major sections. My only suggestion for the author is that they use an active tense rather than a passive tense in introducing the topic. Instead of writing "The Rhode Island Works Program was created to provide financial and employment services for needy families..." the author should consider writing "The Rhode Island Works Program provides financial and employment services..". This suggestion may sound trivial, but I think it helps make the article sound more factual and strong.

This is a strong start to the lead section!

If the author decides to add other sections to the article, the author should make sure to briefly summarize the section in the lead. This is not really a suggestion, but more a reminder! I can see myself perhaps forgetting to do this!

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? Somewhat.

Content evaluation
The content that the author provides is strong and offers insightful information about the program. Since the RI Works Program is new and extremely specific to Rhode Island, I imagine their not being much literature on the topic. Perhaps in order to expand the contents of the article, the author can add a section comparing the program to other similar programs. Perhaps the author can access the Providence Journal Archives (assuming URI students get free access to the publications) and determine some of the new information that has been written/covered on the topic (assuming there are articles on the topic). Perhaps the author should consider explaining some unfamiliar concepts that are mentioned in the overview section: specifically "earning disregard". The author could also choose to hyperlink this concept as well.

Perhaps the author may incorporate more information about how the block grants from TANF helped establish the RIW. It seems that this block grant was very important considering it established programs in different states.

The author my also to discuss more about the Department of Human Services in the "qualifications" section due to the fact that the lead implies that this department is directly responsible for most of the program's requirements.

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
The author does a nice job of presenting the article in a factual tone as opposed to a persuasive tone. There are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular group, however the way the sentences in the "in practice" section are structured may seem to some people to be non-neutral (I may be incorrect about this!).

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, mostly
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, mostly.

Sources and references evaluation
Some of the sources are a little old, but I still think the author uses them in a way that does not reduce the credibility of the article. The sources are thorough, however the link to the last source seems to produce an error.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, mostly.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not really.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes!

Organization evaluation
The article could use a few minor "touch-ups" here and there to make the article sound more factual and formal. Specifically, there seems to be a few problems with the sentence that reads "the program came to be after each states were provided a block grant under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF". Firstly, the author could clean-up the sentence by omitting the word "or" and instead placing "TANF" in parentheses (also the author should include a hyperlink when referencing this program to increase notability). Secondly, the sentence uses unclear, or informal language: the phrasing "came to be" sounds a little bit confusing and informal (you could perhaps say that the program "resulted from" or was "established after". Similarly, the opening line in the qualifications section can be structured in a more formal way; try to steer away from subordinate clauses like these.

I'm sorry if all these small grammatical suggestions are annoying! Your article is off to a great start and these minor errors will probably be cleaned up by someone else, so don't even waste your energy.

However, I think it is important to consider changing the name of the "qualifications" section to either "eligibility" or "eligibility requirements"; or substituting "eligibility requirements" in the lead for "eligibility qualifications". This is mainly due to the fact that the language should be consistent throughout the article. The language in the "lead" section and the language in the "qualification" section seem to mean the same thing, but use different terminology that may confuse the reader.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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? Yes, but could use more support.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I think so, but it could expand.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No.

New Article Evaluation
The article could benefit from including more hyperlinks for some of the concepts and programs mentioned in the article: Specifically the article makes mention of notable programs and organizations such as TANF and the Department of Human Services. The author could also provide hyperlinks, or links to external articles to the following concepts discussed in the article: the benefit reduction rate and the earning disregard. The author could also consider using more secondary articles that relate to the topic.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
All of the suggestions I have made can be observed in each of the above "evaluation" sections. However, to sum up what I have said: The author should consider proof-reading the article for awkward sounding or informal sentences. Furthermore, the author should use hyperlinks to some of the unfamiliar concepts discussed in the article or briefly explain what these concepts mean. The author could also try to maintain consistent language throughout the article and should consider revising the title of the "qualifications" section to mirror the language provided in the lead. Also, I'd suggest the author provide more information about the Department of Human Services role in eligibility requirement and expand on the TANF's block grants that allowed for the program, as well as similar programs to be established. Lastly, the author could consider creating a section that compares the program to other similar/local programs that had emerged from these TANF block grants.

It is very difficult to create a brand new Wikipedia article on a topic with little literature and only pertains to one state. With this said, I think the author has made tremendous strides in producing a quality article that could very well be published to Wikipedia.