User talk:Kelseyferrell/sandbox

hi someone pls talk to me -- Kelseyferrell (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Peer review and suggestions
Nice work Kelsey! As mentioned in the lecture discussion, I particularly like your sections "homelessness" and "housing market." I think they are not only informative, but also open-minded. I did not know anything about the homelessness in Santa Cruz until I read your sections. I wonder, and we already talked about it in our discussion, if you can combine these two sections in together. One suggestion is to make "homelessness" as a main section, and "housing market" as its subsection. In this way, you not only demonstrate their relevance, but also their causal relation, as the latter is one of the crucial causes of the former. Meanwhile, I think the section "economy" can also be another subsection of the section "homelessness." This is because the economy in Santa Cruz also contributes to its homelessness. Another side note is that the title "economy" seems to be too broad. I wonder if "employment" would be more relevant to its information. Again, nice work! I look forward to seeing your new draft!Qiliang12 (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the structure of the economy sections—and how they relate to sections on homelessness, housing policy, labor market, etc.—is an interesting question. Should all of those be sub-sections of 'Economy'? Or of 'Poverty'? Or 'Housing'? It definitely shapes the framing, maybe play around with a few different organizations to see what effect you get from them. I feel like what shows up in the table of contents at the top, and what people see if they just skip down to one heading from there, is important. We also talked about how you have lots of choices about what's significant to include in an economy section. — Carl (Seaplant (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC))

You've found some really interesting information, that'll fill big gaps in these articles. Here are the comments I had: I like how you're using compelling facts & figures to broaden the perspective represented on  these pages. Let me know if you have any questions about stuff we've been talking about or anything else you want a fresh set of eyes to read. — Carl (Seaplant (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC))
 * In the demography section, I feel like I would get even more from some of the details you've found with more  context. E.g. is that 11.3% growth big or small? (that's an average of 1.08% per year, which I think is below the national rate, but I'm not sure). Similarly, more context would be useful for the percet working outside the county figure in the econ section.
 * Find a source for your "due to" claim or re-word it to avoid publishing your own conclusions.
 * I thought the statement about 'the county' relying heavily on tourism is interesting, and an opportunity to affect the frame of the article. Is it the county's own finances that rely on tourism? Is it just a small class of tourist-oriented businesses? Are the same homeless folks acused of being a threat to tourism actually benefitting from tourism too?
 * In the housing market section, watch neutrality about environmental protections and national de-regulation. I don't think you're missing other opinions so much as just some wording that made me feel like your own value judgements were coming through in an un-encyclopedic tone.
 * I wasn't sure exactly what the $3,000/month rent figure was describing exactly (per unit? per capita?).
 * I went ahead and took out that extra 'to' typo we talked about.