User:Yifu6/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Public housing

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article for my sector article, as it talks about public housing, which is the general scope of my practice experience. It is a strong and comprehensive article detailing its history and tradition in different countries.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article is relatively good, with a concise introduction of the topic. However, there is an odd split between public housing and social housing, which could potentially benefit as either a separate subsection or a separate article altogether. Additionally, there is not much of a summary of the different sections of the article, especially talking about the different countries.

The overall content of the article seems pretty good. The history section provides some examples of early public housing, as well as when it got its main start after WWII. However, I think there could be room for more comprehensive history. Each of the following sections include an overview of countries and how they have had public housing. Some of the countries sections seem like they could benefit from more detail. The United States section links a main article of subsidized housing in the U.S., which is also not the same thing. The public housing U.S. section, though, is also the longest section. Unfortunately, this article seems to be largely missing discussion on the racial equity aspect of public housing, especially in the United States. The history of public housing in the United States especially is deeply entangled with systemic racism and segregatory spatial patterns designed to move people around. This is an important aspect of public housing in the U.S.

The article does appear to be relatively neutral, but seems to fail to take any more critical standpoints on race/class intersectionality.

The sources and references seem to be good, but there are also some general articles, and other less scholarly sources.

Similarly, the organization and the writing on the topic seems decent, although there are certainly areas that could use more detail and more sources. For example, the section on Australia only has one source linked. The way that it is broken down into sections seems decent, although I feel like there is room for more sections on, for example, theory. Images seem well-placed and applicable.

The talk page provides some conversations, but talk is rather limited it seems, to a couple of topics on criticism section, and other potential changes.

My overall impression is that on the outset, this seems like a strong article, but with further analysis it appears there are several gaps that could use the addition of more detail or better organizing.

Which article are you evaluating?
California housing shortage

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article for my area article, as it talks about California's housing shortage, which is the scope of change of the research I would be doing on social housing bill SB555.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of this article is long, talking at length framing the problem with factors, context, and facts. It does a good job summarizing the various sections of the article.

The overall content of the article is comprehensive. It talks about first the background, especially in the various housing prices issues and policies leading to our current situation. The causes section neatly addresses common causes like NIMBYism, environmental laws like CEQA, tax structures like proposition 13, high land cost and low density, the Coastal Commission, and construction costs. They then cover the effects, especially housing affordability, as well as social effects like displacement and poor environmental impact, and homelessness and poverty. Then, they cover the math behind the numbers on the shortage, finishing off the article with a comprehensive list of government responses.

The article appears to be quite neutral, and does a good job simply listing the facts and the various details of the programs, problems, and effects.

The sources seem comprehensive and well cited. No section of the article feels like it needs more sources per se, or that there is in question the rigor of the resource citing.

The organization of this article is excellent; each section leads seamlessly into the next, and the use of subtitle levels is helpful to organize ideas embedded within larger ones. Overall, the organization seems well-thought out and easy to read.

There are very limited images, with only two graphs detailing some of the numbers.

The talk page is rather limited, but it does seem like someone has actually edited this article previously for GPP 105. Additionally, it appears as though there was some disagreement with the use of certain figures, data, and research. More comprehensive conversation is less available on the topic.

Overall, this appears to be a strong, comprehensive, and well-organized article. It seems very well-informed, although there are some gaps in some of the legislative response area.