Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico/archive1: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 34: Line 34:
* '''Delist''', per datedness from Hog Farm, and no edits for more than two months. There are prose infelicities everywhere (“current program of today”) and copyedit needs (Sample: The 1993 study, which also researched the impact on household expenditures, formed a completely different conclusion: that the average beneficiaries under the NAP program spent $5 less per week on food than non-participating families, considering if both would have the same amount of resources available. Nevertheless, this conclusion has also been questioned by subsequent research, attributing this result on the author's determination of the population sample.), but a copyedit would not be productive considering datedness of sources and material. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
* '''Delist''', per datedness from Hog Farm, and no edits for more than two months. There are prose infelicities everywhere (“current program of today”) and copyedit needs (Sample: The 1993 study, which also researched the impact on household expenditures, formed a completely different conclusion: that the average beneficiaries under the NAP program spent $5 less per week on food than non-participating families, considering if both would have the same amount of resources available. Nevertheless, this conclusion has also been questioned by subsequent research, attributing this result on the author's determination of the population sample.), but a copyedit would not be productive considering datedness of sources and material. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' Two months since the last edit, and the article still needs a good copyedit, which I am not knowledgeable enough to lead. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 15:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' Two months since the last edit, and the article still needs a good copyedit, which I am not knowledgeable enough to lead. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 15:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
{{FARClosed|delisted}} [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 22:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:43, 6 November 2021

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Mtmelendez, WP Puerto Rico, noticed on June 5, 2021

Review section

I don't believe this one meets the criteria anymore. It is very statistics heavy, but all of the statistics are from 10-15 years ago. The article also claims the programs has been controversial, yet it is sourced almost entirely to US government reports, suggesting that there are additional viewpoints not represented. This one may be an accelerated candidate, as it'll need a complete rewrite and a new FAC would probably be the best way to go once this is reworked. Original nominator has not edited regularly since 2014. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: and @Hog Farm: - I did a small amount of work, but I am not able to do more because I don't have any more current sources. I think you should proceed as you think is best. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: and @Hog Farm: - Update: after my comment above, I found current sources. I can try to work on it, update the statistics to make them more current and remove some of the statistics so it's not so "statistics heavy". --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Eloquent Peasant, are you still planning more work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Nikkimaria:. I am not. Thanks. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - The heavy degree of reliance on older US government reports is still present, and still indicates a lack of third-party views. Hog Farm Talk 05:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delist - I updated a lot of the statistics to be more current. I removed two tables with old stats. And Re: missing third party views, I added findings, sources and text from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which is a "nonpartisan research and policy institute".
  1. "A Brief Overview of the Nutrition Assistance Program". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (in Spanish). June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on March 4, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  2. "The Nutrition Assistance Program Helps Over Half of Puerto Rico's Children". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  3. "Puerto Rico's Nutrition Assistance Program Helps Seniors". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
I think it meets the quality for featured article.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, do these updates address your concerns? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and The Eloquent Peasant: - It's looking a lot better, although the program admin stuff isn't quite current I don't think. Is it okay if I try to get some attention elsewhere (like at WT:FAC) to see if I can try to get someone more familiar with politics to look at this? I'm an auditor and could probably assess econ content okay, but I'd rather get a second look for anything political. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are some additional sources although at first glance not all of them are about this program and many look more like think-tank statements rather than high-quality reliable sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Program admin material needs updated - stuff like "The EBT debit card system has improved the program's payment accuracy rate to 96.4% in 2003, 4 years ahead of its 2007 goal of 95% accuracy" is no longer even close to current. Hog Farm Talk 17:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per datedness from Hog Farm, and no edits for more than two months. There are prose infelicities everywhere (“current program of today”) and copyedit needs (Sample: The 1993 study, which also researched the impact on household expenditures, formed a completely different conclusion: that the average beneficiaries under the NAP program spent $5 less per week on food than non-participating families, considering if both would have the same amount of resources available. Nevertheless, this conclusion has also been questioned by subsequent research, attributing this result on the author's determination of the population sample.), but a copyedit would not be productive considering datedness of sources and material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Two months since the last edit, and the article still needs a good copyedit, which I am not knowledgeable enough to lead. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Nutrition_Assistance_for_Puerto_Rico/archive1&oldid=1053922973"