User:Svg1901/Welfare reform/LizCottle Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Svg1901


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Svg1901/Welfare_reform?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Welfare reform

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Nice build on the information already in the article! The lead of the article could definitely provide a bit more summary on what is discussed in the article (essentially a break down of different countries' welfare reform). The largest, most detailed section is the US so it may be helpful to frame this upfront. I like how your content additions go back to 1935 to provide much more context on how the welfare system and affiliated policies have morphed (or stayed relatively similar) over the years. The earlier content is typically left out of the conversation. You do an excellent job tying this back to gender. It would also be interesting to add a bit on race here, as it is another major player in welfare eligibility. You have one statement explaining that the majority of people who qualified were white widows, but it could be useful to explain what happened to the widows of other races. I see an opportunity to add a bit more content about deservingness and othering as well, since it is quite relevant as ADC was so heavily means-tested. After you add some more content re: AFDC and PWORA (as outlined in your sandbox), the context you provide about TANF in the present day will add much need relevant information! I do think there is also room to briefly mention the US welfare state and how ideologies of individualism contribute to this work-first approach to social benefits. It may help frame the US compared to the other countries listed. Your tone is extremely neutral although the information you present does lean negatively towards US welfare reform. Perhaps present some thoughts from the other side to balance this?

It looks like your sources are reputable, however you only reference 2 of them. I would add a few more to ensure that you are capturing a wider net of literature on the topic. I see a few other sources but they are not linked in the article. Make sure you insert them using the "cite" feature. In terms of organization, your writing is well structured and you have clearly thought about the flow of information you plan to add. My overall impression is that this additional intersectional context on welfare reform improves the article a ton and lays a groundwork for people to add more detail to other countries listed in the article. I'd be interested to read your final version.

Nice work!