User talk:Cchou19/sandbox

Annabel's Peer Review for Caroline
 Peer Review for Caroline: PRWORA  In looking at the unedited version of the article, I think the lead is pretty comprehensive. However, I would reorder the last two paragraphs so that the reader understands what the law does sooner. I found the rest of the information in the lead more helpful after I learned exactly what the law does. As Caroline mentions, I do not think the structure under “History” makes sense. It includes mainly sections of different time periods, but includes one random section on “Reasons for policy reversal” that seems out of place. The rest of the structure seems strong. As Caroline notes, and as is noted on the talk page, there are several point of view issues with this article. In addition, there is a lack of sources under the “Reasons for policy reversal” section. Some sections, namely “Economic impact” consist mainly of quotations from one source rather than summary information from multiple sources. While there are a few sources that are outdated and could be updated, the sources cited are mostly recent and from reliable sources. However, some citations are from sources like CNN or Fox News, which are organizations known to typically lean a certain direction. This is reflected in the point of view issues mentioned above. I agree with Caroline’s decision to cut the section “Reasons for policy reversal.” While I think it could be interesting integrated into “History,” rewriting this would be a lot of work and for the purposes of our project, omitting it is the best option. I think it is a great idea to add a 2012-present section to history! It is not something I thought of when reading the article, but the last information about PRWORA is now almost a decade old so I think adding this section will strengthen the article. In the “1930s to 1970s” section, I would suggest cleaning up the wording a little more, although I think the addition of new sources strengthens this section. For example, instead of “required officially” I might use “mandated.” The next sentence states, “WIN assumed that (1) there would be plenty of jobs accessible to those wanting a job, (2) that the lack of skills, attitudes towards working could be fixed through training services offered by the program, and (3) welfare recipients would voluntarily respond to the program’s resources.” I might edit this to be, “WIN assumed that (1) there would be plenty of jobs accessible to those wanting a job, (2) the lack of skills and (negative?) attitudes towards working could be fixed through training services offered by the program, and (3) welfare recipients would voluntarily respond to the program’s resources.” The next sentence mentions that able-bodied adults without children were originally disqualified from this service. I was wondering if able-minded was also a category for basis of rejection. The second to last sentence begins with “Additionally” but contains the word “also” as well. One of these words should be deleted. Overall, I think the changes to this section are positive. I do wonder if it would be possible to add more sources for this information. In the “1980s and 1990s section” I think the section on Tommy Thompson could use an additional source after talking about his solution. I think that the re-write of the last paragraph is a huge improvement as it fixes some point of view issues and gives more relevant information about the political circumstances at the time. After reading the full article and edits, I think a 2012-modern section (or edit the 2012 section to be 2010-2019) would strengthen the article. It would also give the reader an idea of the status of PRWORA today. Overall, I think this article is peer edited well, but a few changes can still be made to strengthen it further!