" 

 == Peer review from Protonk == 

 Hi, I'm an online ambassador in the US education program and I have been asked to take a look at this article and give some general comments. Many of these will be only suggestions and you can (and should) click through to some of the style guides and policies I link to determine for yourself if my comments merit large changes in the article. 

 ===Style=== 

 *A number of your sections include bulleted lists where the body text is broken into short, separable claims presented in a list style.  Generally these formats are used sparingly on Wikipedia.  In the case of this specific article a bulleted list for funding may be appropriate, but in many cases the use of a bulleted list will confound attempts by you or other editors to improve the prose.  Take the two dueling sections ""Funding"" and ""Funding Priorities"".  If we combined the two sections as they are now we might be tempted to shorten the bulleted lists in order to leave only those sources of funding which are most important.  but that might not be in the best interests of the readers who could conclude that omitted sources of funding were wholly unimportant.  If instead the funding section was a series of paragraphs describing the various funding sources and their relative priority we would not give any readers the impression that a neglected element (e.g. ""Sales of City Surplus Land"") wasn't actually a source of funds rather than merely not being one of the more important sources.   
 *Generally only the first word in a section heading should be capitalized.  Proper nouns are capitalized in section titles even if they aren't the first word but almost all the sections should be edited to capitalize only the first word. 
 *The section titled ""Regional Housing Trust Funds in the United States"" contains a table with external links for regional housing trusts.  There is a tag on the section now noting that these links do not meet our policy on external links.  Adding the websites may seem like a helpful gesture to the reader, but imagine a copy of this article distributed on DVD, flash drive or as a printed book (all possible outcomes for wikipedia articles).  That external link would mean nothing to the readerwell, perhaps not nothing but it wouldn't serve to improve navigation.  One of the reasons we relegate external links to a section at the end of an article (see this featured article for an example) is that downstream users who wish to republish wikipedia articles on a non-connected device (such as paper!) can merely remove the external link sections.  There are other reasons, but that is a big one in my mind.   
 *References are generally well formatted and provide links to the sources as well as identifying material where needed.  There are some formatting errors in the urls for footnotes 34/35 right now, but that is easily fixed. 
 *Take a look at some of the guidance in the manual of style regarding overlinking.  You have a number of wikilinks to pertinent topics, which is great!  However you also link repeatedly to articles such as U.S. state and Affordable housing (sometimes within just a few lines of earlier links).  Linking is a bit like highlighting.  If you highlight too much, you lose the benefits of increased focus on highlighted material.  For a quick rule of thumb, load up the wikipedia article on a medium sized laptop screen.  If you can see more than one wikilink to the same topic without scrolling the view at all, you might want to consider removing one of the links.   
 **On a related note, remember that context is extremely important when linking.  If you link to Median household income in this article (or Real estate transfer tax) it provides tremendous value to readers as these are germane topics which may help the reader better understand the material in the article.  Linking to Homelessness is less helpful.  Not necessarily because homelessness doesn't matter with regard to housing policy but because within the specific context of this article the very broad topic on homelessness may not be as illuminating.  I'm not telling you to remove that link.  Merely suggesting that you pay attention to context when linking. 
 **Some of the articles you can link to aren't immediately apparent to new users either because navigation to those articles is difficult or you may not have a good handle on which subjects are likely to have a wikipedia article.  for instance the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 has a wikipedia article!   
 *There is a tag on the article suggesting that categories should be added.  You can add categories yourself by including th