User talk:Hako97/sandbox

--Editing/Peer Review, Sasha Mizenin--

Ban the Box (Area): I really think this is a good selection for your area. It does seem very related to the Bread Project, but perhaps some other ways this Ban the Box could affect the community you are working with could be helpful as well, just to give some context. For example, would other employers discredit this, but the Bread Project would embrace this? Also, I am not seeing any quotes or drafts, as they are probably on a different platform. It would be good to see your progress with the editing of these two wiki pages!

Apprenticeship (Sector): Reading what you have written seems that you are already quite knowledgable on this concept (because I didn't know what "tracking" was. However, maybe clarifying the correlation it has with your PE would be helpful. I have some ideas, but want to know your take because you have more information on it. Also, am interested in reading specific quotes of articles that show this correlation!

Overall, interesting topic and good work(:

Jacqueline Dang’s Peer Review: Hannah
Jacqueline Dang’s Peer Review: Hannah

The initial drafting portion for each article was rather brief at the time of this first peer review, so a general comment would be just to flesh out your drafts more with details gathered from sources, and explanations/elaborations. My peer suggestions mostly pertain to the “Implementation of ‘Ban the Box’” section, since it has full sentences and includes integrated sources. I feel that I cannot reliably and effectively critique the “Re-entry Apprenticeships” section because it is still in bullet format aside from the first sentence. The only comment I have for this section is that you can probably begin with explaining what “Re-entry Apprenticeships” is and/or provide some examples if the current article does not already do so. In addition, be careful with saying that “training programs were effective” unless you have evidence that can back this up. In terms of the BTB section, a general comment is that more elaboration is needed to provide adequate context. For example, the study you cited from the American Journal of Criminal justice was mentioned, but the results of this study and subsequent impact was not discussed.

Overall, interesting topic, and I look forward to learning more about your topic in the future!

Lead - Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Not quite - can add in a few lines about importance - Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes, you talk about BTB right off the bat, which is what the entirety of the article is about - Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? See previous comment

Structure - Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Can’t quite comment on structure and organization until more content is added

Balancing - Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Can’t quite comment on this until more content is added - Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Can’t quite comment on this until more content is added - Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? So far, I do not see bias or argumentation for a particular viewpoint

Neutral Content - Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I cannot - the drafts seem relatively neutral. - Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." I don’t see any at the moment - Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No - Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No

Reliable Sources - Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? I consider most, if not all, of the listed sources reliable and scholarly - Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Can’t quite comment on this until more content is added - Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! There are several statements that need citing or supporting evidence (See previous comment)

Positives - First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I thought that you maintained an informative tone, which is great! - What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? See previous content comments - What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? See previous comment