User:Sallyfried/Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act/ENorth3 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sallyfried


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act

Evaluate the drafted changes
First, I think your recommended changes to the structure and subsections are good -- the original article separates content under headings that don't always make sense, sometimes creating redundancy. If you move things around, you might need to add a couple transition sentences to clarify how they fit. For example, how do the racialized and gendered aspects of poverty propagate stereotypes? (That could be an area to add more citations to Black women authors in particular). How is the Final Rule provision a violation of women's constitutional rights (or should that section have an entirely new heading)?

The sections on work requirements are important additions. There might be some academic sources you can cite on the childcare piece to flesh out how childcare responsibilities disproportionately fall to women, making it all the more difficult to get and a keep a job.

The new paragraph on the "Final Rule" provision are relevant and written neutrally. You might want to add some more citations here, especially about lawmakers' concerns about "out-of-wedlock" births. Some of the optional readings from Session 3 might fit here if you can't find reliable sources in the scholarly literature. At the end of this sentence I've cited a few articles focused on outcomes from PRWORA; they might include some discussion or references that are relevant to the article you're editing. To apply intersectional/feminist lenses, you could also add a sentence or two about how socially constructed ideas of deservingness influenced the passage of the Final Rule.

The new content in the section "Violation of Women's Constitutional Rights" is very relevant and important, but it could be written in a more neutral way. For example, in the first sentence, who is making the argument that work can be an escape from abuse at home? In general, you should probably have a citation on almost every sentence that is making a claim in this paragraph. So that you're not citing the same source over and over, you could also consolidate some of the sentences by noting that they come from the same study, i.e.: "A mixed methods study of welfare recipients in Allegheny County, PA found that domestic abuse can undermine women's job prospects and, in some cases, having a job can worsen abuse at home [Citation to Brush]. For example, abusive men surveil their partners at their work locations, often putting women's jobs in jeopardy. Many abusive men also look down on..." and continue with the other highlights from Brush. If some of these highlights come from prior work that Brush was citing in her analysis, see if you can add those original sources as references to build credibility.

Overall, your additions fill notable content gaps in the original article. I hope these suggestions will help you add even more nuance to address equity concerns and apply intersectional theories.

References