User talk:LeahEdith/Sandbox

1.	Does the contribution appear to be cut and paste from an existing source without appropriate citation? •	No, it does not.

2.	Does the lead section provide a stand-alone concise summary of the article? •	Not really. You definitely need this, especially since your intro doesn’t define the “juvenilization of poverty” until the end of the second paragraph. Define it right away in the lead section that you create. 3.	Is the field-specific jargon avoided where possible and explained where necessary? •	Yes. You define things well and don’t really use jargon.

4.	Are wikilinks provided where appropriate? •	You provide good links. You can also include: absolute poverty, relative poverty, •	“Feminization” is no longer correctly linked.

5.	Is the page edited an orphan? •	Yes, this is an orphan page. I’m not sure about the “what links here” comment.

6.	Does the contribution maintain a neutral point of view, consist of verifiable statements and avoid becoming original research/opinion? •	I think the introduction could be even MORE neutral. One example that caught my eye: "While these numbers are already staggering this statistic, an absolute measure, is a contested one that may obscure the true number of children currently living in impoverished homes." •	Additionally, it kind of reads like a research paper. I struggle with that a bit, too. Maybe look at some good wiki articles or ask Sandra for her input.

7.	Are facts cited from reputable sources? •	Changes in family structure: par. 1 & 3 need more citations •	Changes in social welfare spending: par. 3 & 5

8.	Is the contribution clear: written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plan clear prose; free of redundant language? •	To be honest, I had some difficulty differentiating between the “juvenilization of poverty” and the “feminization of poverty.” You first sentence under “changes in family structures” helps clarify that, but maybe try to find more research that talk about children more, or even just say “children of single mothers are more likely to…” more, instead of “single mothers are more likely to…” This will help the reader focus on the child. •	It seems like you plan to have a “juvenilization” section, but I think your article can be stronger if you mention juvenilization of poverty more throughout your paper. This is kind of a hard task because it’s not a concrete thing, like food stamps. You can’t just say “Food stamp first came about in…” etc. But I think it would’ve helped me more if you would’ve referred to the juvenilization constantly throughout your paper.

9.	Correct grammar, verb tenses, and spelling? •	For the most part. There are a few errors.

10.	Is the page categorized? •	Yes, you clearly categorize your sections.

11.	In general are the reasons why the topic is notable made clear, providing enough detail on important aspects, without providing too much detail on minor points? •	Your introduction helps with this, but it could be strengthened with a first sentence that talks about the “juvenilization of poverty” to introduce the poverty statistics.

12.	Are references formatted properly? •	Yes!

13.	Is there an Infobox Template that could be used on this page? •	I actually don’t see how it could be used for this article.

14.	Is the “educational assignment” template included on the article’s discussion page? •	Please post it.

Substantive Review
It seems that you have responded adequately to the earlier reviewers comments on the introduction.

History of the Term

line 1: "begin TO appear"

If you have a reference for the seminal article on feminization of poverty, this would fit well.

History of the Term line one: comma after 'high'

I think its good you bring up the fact that different measures show different rates of poverty. However, you do not give your reader any information as to what these differences are. I would add at least 2 sentences here distinguishing the different attributes and logics of each measure.

I think you need to include in this introduction the changing ratios between child poor and the poor in general since this is in fact what the term primarily refers to.

Nice Graph!

Changes in Family Structure

Line three: CONTINUED throughout

"During the decades directly proceeding the popularization of the "juvenilization" term": This is confusing. Just refer to the time-period.

I'm left in this section wanting to know what has caused these changes in family structures. We've read a lot about this in the course and think it would be worth including a few sentences. Expand after your sentence: "These shifts were both reactions to and reflections of massive shifts in the American economic, social, and cultural landscapes." Your last sentence about low-wage works hints that you're going in this direction, but wage-labor is just one of many important factors.

I think something should be said of the racial disparities here as well.

"of the systematic project of transference of poverty onto families and children": Project implies instrumentality or consciousness, which is not clear from your article, and questionable.

"jumbled forces": imprecise and reads a bit like expressive commentary.

General Comment: I think this section could benefit from a substantial rewrite. After your first two sentence paragraph, I would suggest clearly discussing the historical shift of the safety net related directly to children. What types of programs affect child poverty, how did they change, and what was this outcome. Then you could go into discussing how this fits into a broader shift of welfare reform.

Racialized Juvenalization patterns Again, i think its important to include your statistics on black single-headed households under the changes in family structure section.

Second, it is extremely important that both here and in the family structure section that you discuss why this is the case: particularly the historical dimension of ethnoracial domination and the uneven effects of economic restructuring on the ghetto poor.

Third, this section does not include any statistic on the racial disparity of juvenile poverty. It would be useful to see statistics on both the disproportionate number of black children in poverty, as well as how this proportion of black children to poor black in general has changed over time.

Long Term Effects I would tamper the line: "as Lewis or Michael Harrington might argue, an ingrained part of the poor child's very psyche or DNA." and perhaps instead simply highlight a difference of emphasis: structural vs. cultural explanations. I would drop Harrington's name altogether in fact, because his argument is in fact largely structural and used the term without really much of a theory. Lewis never suggested that poverty was related to DNA.

I think this is a very important section of the article. It could quickly become a very long section though, so i might instead suggest bullet-points with key references.

Single Mother Homes

Cut: "More about the effects of these perceptions will be discussed below" reads to scholarly and unnecessary.

I would move the section on poverty in two-parent homes up to changing family structure. The changing role of work and the wage-labor contract through the family is critical to the phenomena and should not just be considered a "political implication." You could still include a line after the welfare queen bit, of how this stereotype masks the poverty among children in two-parent households here. You also need to include a statistic on the percentage of poor children in two-parent homes.

As Compared to Aged Poverty Is "political implications" the best section heading here? i'm not sure the comparison to aged poverty fits under this bill. Also the title is a bit awkward "As compared. . . " i wonder if you could perhaps include this comparison when discussing changing welfare policies since this divergence is largely based on the type of welfare provisions each receive.

International Contexts I would include a link to wikipedia's "child poverty" entry here. The last sentence should be revised. "Child welfare advocates argue that it is in these nations. . . "

Nice work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoph.herring (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)