User talk:Aso4530/sandbox

Peer Review of Ariel's Edit Plan
All of your edit plans seem very needed and would help clarify the article a lot. The points I add below either reinforce or add some of your points or bring up issues in your sections of the article that should be addressed.

Adding to your plans

 * You mention that in "Costs to Inclusion," you want to take a look at how race might be an important factor in the effects on various minority groups. In a similar vein, in "Benefit Programs," there is a sentence that starts "Race has a strong negative correlation..." Perhaps you can delve more into each race here, since just "race" by itself is not very clear. How is it different for black, asian, hispanic, european, arab, etc.?
 * You plan to clarify "positive correlation" and "negative correlation," and I very much support that edit. Such terminology with no clarification makes the article inaccessible to people who are not familiar with that academic language. If possible, I may suggest going beyond defining positive/negative correlation and instead re-writing sentences to make the relationship clear without resorting to such language. A good example of this is the sentence in "Addressing concerns:" "Regardless of incorporation, welfare effort and TANF benefits decline as the Latino population grows from a nominal size to 10 percent of the population." It explains the relationship very easily: ___ declines as ____ grows.

Other suggested edits in your sections
I found some other sentences and areas in your sections that can be improved upon.
 * In Section "Provisions," there is the sentence "According to the House Ways and Means Committee, 'The major goal of Public Law 104–193 is...'" Perhaps you could add a sentence explaining that Public Law 104-193 is the same as PRWORA. The only other place in the article that shows this is in the box at the top of the page, which many may not read.
 * There is an sentence that seems to have opinion inside it. The first sentence in "Immigration welfare" states "A lesser known provision of PRWORA made immigrants..." The statement of this being a "lesser known provision" seems to be more opinion than fact. Either some statistics with a citation should be provided to back up this claim or should be re-written, perhaps as just "another provision of PRWORA made immigrants..."

Suggested edits outside your sections
I also noticed some things that can be improved outside your sections. Some of my suggestions include copy-editing, which you indicated you wanted to do in the article.
 * In "Attitudes towards women's roles," there is this sentence: "As such, the implicit message regarding "women's roles" was that full-time mothering was a luxury reserved only for people who could afford it." Perhaps this sentence needs a citation of a opinion piece of some source that addresses this "implicit message." Otherwise, it could just be the writer's own conclusion.
 * In "Concern about dependency," the first sentence states: "The idea that the welfare-receiving poor had become too dependent upon public assistance also encouraged the act." Instead of "the act," we could be very specific and say PRWORA so there is no ambiguity.
 * Likewise, in "1980s and 1990s," the phrase "Proponents of the bill argued..." could instead be written as "Proponents of the PRWORA bill argued.."
 * In "1980s and 1990s," there is this interesting sentence:"Research was used by both sides to make their points, with each side often using the same piece of research to support the opposite view.[5]" Perhaps an example can be included?
 * In "Passage in 104th Congress," "Newt Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as 90 days." Should we include whether his proclamation was successful?

That's my review! I hope it is helpful, and feel free to ask me to expand on anything I said or whatever!