User talk:Justin.tsubasa/sandbox

In response to the article draft on CalFresh, the provided additions do well to expand on the qualifications and nuances of the program, but can be improved in a number of avenues. For instance, the current titles of the sections, particularly the "What is it?" section title, do not fit with Wikipedia's norms on drafting contributions by being a question. Other titles, such as the "Eligibility" and "History" sections, do fit with the norms of remaining unbiased and sounding encyclopedic, but the first section title could potentially use a change to a more determinant name (an example could be "description"). Another change with may improve clarity to the article would be through the ordering of the referenced sections. In other words, it maybe best to include the "history" section as first to give readers an introduction into the basis for SNAP. Along with this, this particular section could be further improved be more exhaustive descriptions of how SNAP and CalFresh differ; the provided description currently in the draft could potentially be difficult for readers not educated in the subject to understand. Despite this, the inclusion of the qualifications for CalFresh make an impactful positive change to the overall article and is cited with respectable sources. However, to further illustrate this change, a potential improvement to the article would be an expansion of the lead section to summarize these qualifications and reference the new added information in the contribution. Vanguard826 (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

As a whole, the new additions and improvements make the article much more detailed and structured. The article does a good job of maintaining an encyclopedic tone, but there are some parts that could be rewritten to sound more neutral. One classmate recommended changing the "What is it?" header to a more formal title which I agree with; using "Overview" or "Summary" could be good alternatives that fit Wikipedia norms of writing better. Moreover, in the "History" section, the phrase "In a broad sense" could be taken out to make the paragraph have more of an encyclopedic tone. Although the phrase isn't biased towards a certain viewpoint, it seems a little unnecessary and gives the paragraph more of a stylistic writing style that doesn't always align with Wikipedia articles. The sources that were used at the bottom of the page are informative and up-to-date, but they should be cited throughout the article to fit Wikipedia guidelines. Cadencehsu (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Cadencehsu

Peer review
Hi Justin,

Your article contributions overall look really good! They add a lot of facts that are not covered in the original article, especially regarding the history of CalFresh and what CalFresh actually is and why it was established. I'm surprised the current Wikipedia article doesn't go over this so I'm glad you're making these additions! One addition I would suggest though is to go a bit more into detail in the history section. You briefly mention Roosevelt's Food Stamps program and JFK's pilot program, but it'd be great if you could also briefly talk about how these programs differed from California's current CalFresh program. Otherwise though, everything that you are adding appear on topic and definitely related to CalFresh, so the contributions seem like they would fit seamlessly into the current CalFresh Wikipedia article. Also, the tone used in your contributions sounds very neutral and "Wikipedian". There does not appear to be any bias in how you are discussing events. Your article contributions just give the facts, so the tone is really well done!

Also, your sources appear to be well-sourced as the majority of them are government sites, which should be unbiased and reliable. A reader on the Internet has a lot of reason to trust what you're writing. However, while the sources are good, also remember to use in-text citations throughout the article. The article has a lot of great information already that comes from solid sources but it is currently not clear where exactly each point is coming from as there are no in-text citations. For example, in your sentence, "The program is advertised at something that 'helps to improve the health and well-being of qualified households and individuals by providing them a means to meet their nutritional needs.'", which source are you getting this quote from? You should make sure to use Wikipedia's in-text citation tool to add these citations so readers know exactly where each point and fact is coming from.

Overall, really solid job though, especially on tone! The next big step is just add those in-text citations and make sure everything in the article is properly cited and referenced.

Jeffrie w (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review BG
In general, I think your article is extremely informative and goes down into the fine details of the CalFresh program. I would only recommend minor contextual and grammatical revisions in order to make your article even stronger. Below I will add in my suggestions:

For the what is it? portion of the article draft, I would first switch it from saying “...would like to add more healthy food options to their budget” to say “...that would like to add to their budget in order to afford healthier food options.” Also, instead of quoting frequently directly from sources, I would suggest paraphrasing into your own words and citing it instead. Lastly, I would introduce each organization with its full name rather than the common abbreviation just to give the reader a more clear picture of the process around CalFresh.

For the eligibility portion, I would suggest adding in what the Federal Poverty Level is exactly. I would also suggest adding in a link to where you can find the “various deductions and credits” outlined in benefit 2.

For the history part, I would add more context as to what the differences in the program were between the FDR and JFK administrations.

Bgallardo225 (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)