User talk:JeshuaKJohn/sandbox

Jeshua's Peer Review
Homelessness in the San Francisco Bay Area

I agree that homelessness moves beyond boundaries of San Francisco, and is transient in nature, so renaming the article will benefit a more encompassing view of homelessness. However, I would suggest reserving the name switch until you are able to include more information. Right now, it only contains material for San Francisco, thus the title and content do not match.

Secondly, I believe, the aforementioned action basically creates a whole new page, with the previous content dedicated to San Francisco, becoming its own section. While I applaud your ambition and identifying regional omissions, retooling the whole page to address homelessness generally in the Bay Area, may take more time than we have left in the semester. If the current material in the article was not SF specific, re-writing the article would not be such an arduous task.

Perhaps, the addition you made regarding rent prices to the first paragraph of the article, could serve as a new section for the old article: Homelessness in the San Francisco->Rising housing costs or Affordable housing (subtopic). When I read the opening statement of the current article, I understood the rationality behind mentioning rent prices, but immediately thought it is only one reason behind a multifaceted problem. The opening statement leads me to believe the article will be about rising rent costs, rent control or affordable housing, rather than a overall general description of homelessness in San Francisco or the Bay Area.

Tiny house movement

For clarity, this review is mainly based upon what is written on the “tiny house movement” (THM) contained within the “evaluating two articles” section of your user page. I love your thoughts on THM regarding homelessness, specifically as “realistic problem solving method” and “elements of displacement”. Additionally, as you have mentioned, adding environmental content, either as a seperate section or as part of the pros and cons subtopic, would add breadth to the article. Another thing I noticed is the amount of citations for a relatively small article. Most of the citations appear to be from news articles. Perhaps, if possible, it would be beneficial to add material from scholarly sources.

Peer review edit by: Adam Woodruff Zooshoe (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review- Anjali
Hi, my name is Anjali and I am from the Tuesday section. I peer reviewed what was in your "summarizing and synthesizing" and read your "evaluating articles" for help! If you have any questions feel free to respond to this feedback.

1. I read in your "evaluating articles" that you believe there to be a lack of international focus and I agree with you! I think you can find more sources that discuss this and add information to the Outside US section of the article.

2. I see that you have found more sources that give statistics on what exactly a tiny house would be like. It would be beneficial to combine your contributions. What I mean by this is instead of having one paragraph per source (like what is in your "summarizing and synthesizing" section right now) you can have multiple sources per paragraph. An example would be combining your last paragraph with your fourth, as the two discuss similar ideas. Changing around the order of the paragraphs you have is also a good idea. Your fifth paragraph can be moved below your third! This would improve the flow of your article.

3. What would be extremely beneficial is if you could expand on the pros and cons section of the article. You touch on it a little bit (" there is often a misalignment between the needs of the occupant(s), and the expressed design from the creating team") but finding more sources and incorporating more information would create a more holistic view of tiny houses.

Overall, I think spending more time to find information and sources could help develop this article in the way that you expressed in your "evaluating articles" section. Good luck!

--Akalra.18 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)