User talk:Vprakash97/sandbox

Area Berkeley): Homelessness in Berkeley This article has a great section on homelessness in Berkeley in the 21st century, but its history section is lacking a bit. The discussion of the 1923 Fire especially seems out of context, and is missing citations. There is no context given for why this specific fire was particularly important in Berkeley history, nor a good conclusion as to what happened to the 4,000 people who were displaced by it. The section then jumps to the 60’s with no information about what happened in-between. I think the 1923 Fire section either needs to be taken out or added to - as it is right now, it is more confusing than helpful. The 21st Century section is very well done, and has lots of citations (which work yay). The only change I can think of making to this is the resource list, which could be expanded on. In addition, I think it would be nice to categorize the resources by specific populations they serve (e.g. women, veterans, etc.)

Sector (Housing): Homeless Bill of Rights The current Homeless Bill of RIghts article has a lot of information on California, but very little about other US States in which such policy has actually been implemented. I think it would be good to add some information into the section on Illinois specifically, because right now it has a one-sentence description and nothing else. I also think the “Controversy” section could use some work. The obvious opposition stakeholders such as business groups and politicians are mentioned, but there’s no real reason given as to why they oppose homeless rights. The Controversy section also only has information about California, which I think is misleading since different States probably have different reasons for not implementing these policies.

Sector (Housing): Affordable Housing This article is the most well-developed of the ones I have listed, but it focuses heavily on the United States, Canada, and Australia. Very little information is provided about affordable housing policies in other countries, which doesn’t seem fair - India has many unhoused individuals but only 3 sentences of this article focus on that country. I’d like to find out more about affordable housing initiatives in other countries and add that information to this article.

Vicentia's Peer response
Notes

I like that you were making contributions to the article, adding, more information and changing the structure of the article. However, I found it quite difficult to spot the edits you made. It seems you copied chunks of the article into your sandbox but did not indicate that it was copied from the Wikipedia article, thus I found it difficult to identify the contributions you made. The article seemed already well edited. Also, there were a few places where citations were needed. There were also some sentences that evoked a sense that you were providing your thoughts and opinions about an issue, which is not encouraged in Wikipedia articles.

I think going forward, it would be helpful for peer review, if you could make your contributions or sentences conspicuous, to allow peers to easily identify and make detailed edits and reviews.

Overall, the article seems to be well polished, and informative.

NB: I directly edited your articles in your sandbox, you can see changes and comments there. Vicentiagyau (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Vicentia, I'm sorry you had difficulty seeing what changes I made to my articles. I had a peer review disclaimer at the top of my Sandbox that explained that I wasn't sure how to show my edits so instead chose to post what I want the articles to look like in the end. Thank you for pointing out the issues with tone, I will be sure to take a more neutral stance in my writing going forward. --Vprakash97 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review (from Vivi)
I am really impressed by the thorough coverage you and your article seem to be taking towards a topic as complex and multifaceted as homelessness, particularly in an area like Berkeley. The language used throughout the article is informative though at times tinged with opinion based tones and a bit informal (example: "60s" instead of 1960s). One item to note is the just as Vicentia mentioned I too found it difficult to identify what you were actually adding to the article. I appreciate that you are restricting and reorganizing both articles which is great and I do think that they each flow well which is probably partially/completely due to you. However, I think that the article would also benefit from information you add being that berkley of all places has a lot of great discussions which I imagine you could pull from local public records in addition to the vast resources we are privileged to as Berkeley students. I believe that you are the person who is collaborating with Jeshua, a student in the Thursday class working on the same topic which I think has the potential to be a fabulous collaboration. Overall the writing is well organized and on the right track! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivikir (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Vivi, thank you for reviewing my page! I totally see how it would have been difficult for you to see what changes I made, but wasn't sure how to show that other than by having a work-in-progress version of what I hope the article will eventually look like. Thank you for pointing out the issues with tone and word choice - I will pay more attention to both. --Vprakash97 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)