Talk:Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

message: Can anyone get a picture (edited for sensitive content) of the PAN Card? It would greatly improve the article. - Mtmelendez 00:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: You think is relevant to any of the information found here. It is better to have one picture rather than none.

The article covers the topic well, and besides the above issues should be able to be passed. I will leave the article on hold for seven days until they are fixed. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All very necessary edits. I can't believe I missed so many mistakes. Anyway, I added a few images since I couldn't find any pictures specifically related to this article, but I'll try to find some or make some in the coming weeks. I hope these past edits are enough to pass the GA criteria. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: I have passed this article based on the article meeting the GA criteria. Good job on fixing the above suggestions so quickly, and the images are welcome additions to the article. Keep searching for any other images you can find that may be relevant if possible. Make sure that the article maintains its quality, ensuring that all new information is properly sourced. If you have the time, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the backlog. Good work, and keep improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 06:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: A couple of copyediting comments that I didn't want to clutter up FAC with.
*If you do keep the lead graphic, the caption should presumably read "is a federal aid program" not "is federal aid program". 
*Background, 2nd para: "shortly after the expansion": Does the GAO report date imply that this growth happened in only a year?  If so, I'd say that: "Within a year of the expansion, the Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico was larger [or "had become larger"] . . . "  I don't think you need the "however" on that line, either.
*I'm not clear what "8 percent of total federal expenditures" means: 8% of what exactly?  I think you mean that the Puerto Rico FSP cost 8% of the total FSP cost, as well as feeding 8% of the total number of people fed by the FSP.  If so I think this needs to be phrased more clearly.
I'm out of time right now, but will try to return and add a few more comments later.  Looks like a well-researched article; nice job. Mike Christie (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good; I'll keep going down it as I have time.  By the way, no need to post to my talk page -- I'll keep this on my watchlist for a while, so I'll definitely see it.  More soon, I hope. Mike Christie (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some copyedit comments 

message: I made a few changes; please revert if I messed up anything.  Three specific comments:
*Can you get the appropriations dollar amount by year since 1982?  That would be a nice little graph.  Even better if you can get it corrected for inflation; or put both lines on the same graph.
*Knowing the current population of PR, I would think you can calculate the actual percentage now participating in NAP, and add an actual percentage to the sentence that says it has significantly declined.
*The sentence starting "This fact is more worrisome . . . " bothers me a little.  You cite the GAO; is the "worrisome" your interpretation or does it appear in some of the criticism you cite previously?  I can see why this is relevant, but unless there is citable criticism commenting on this data I think you should mention it more neutrally, i.e. without the "worrisome" comment. 
-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On it. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add the information later tonight, after I return from work . - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it took this long, I couldn't find each and every year of appropriations to 1982, the best I found was from 1995 to 2007, which I shortened to a ten year span graph for consistency issues. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Program creation copyedits 

message: Just one question: you have both "Puerto Rico government" and "Puerto Rican government"; surely this should be consistent.  The manual of style might have some guidance somewhere in a sub-page on this; failing that, just be consistent. Mike Christie (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Program administration 

message: As I read it, :Image:NAP Program Level 1997-2007.PNG seems to imply that nearly US$1,600 billion (ie 1.6 trillion) is spent on the program annually. Should the parenthetical comment attached to the title not say "in millions"? Also, it may be worth adding the word "annually" to the sentence on the budget in the lead, as it's not clear at a glance whether it's referring to the amount allocated since the inception of the project, or the amount allocated yearly, monthly, etc. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the image contains an error. It should read "in millions". I'll get on it now. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: Food and Nutrition Program Federal Expenditures (2003)
Location                	FederalExpenditures (2003)Report No. GAO-06-541, Appendix VII, pg. 179, Table 33: Estimated Food and Nutrition Program Federal Expenditures for the States, Puerto Rico, and the Other U.S. Insular Areas, Fiscal Year 2003Source	Percentage of Total NationalProgram Expenditures (2003)  
50 States               	7$ 21.3 billion                                                                                                                                                                                                                  	93.12%
Puerto Rico             	6$ 1.4 billion                                                                                                                                                                                                                   	6.12%
Washington, D.C.        	5$ 90.1 million                                                                                                                                                                                                                  	0.39%
Guam                    	4$ 53.4 million                                                                                                                                                                                                                  	0.23%
U.S. Virgin Islands     	3$ 18.5 million                                                                                                                                                                                                                  	0.08%
Northern Mariana Islands	2 $ 7.1 million                                                                                                                                                                                                                  	0.03%
American Samoa          	1$ 5.6 million                                                                                                                                                                                                                   	0.02%
Total                   	$ 22.87 billion                                                                                                                                                                                                                  	100.00%
Can someone explain to me how those numbers add up to 28 billion, or am I missing something obvious?
24.63.110.184 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right,. It adds up to 22 billion. Mac Davis (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're both right. It was a typo, the correct amount is $22.8747, rounding to 22.87. The 28.87 was a slip up. Sorry about that. More revisions are welcome! - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it.  --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: I rolled the page back to a previous version because when I clicked it since it was the feature article somebody wrote "i like dicks" 
Hope I helped! 
(adca14 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Is it possible for an individual to receive food stamps (S.N.A.P.) in mainland U.S, and also receive N.A.P. in Puerto Rico? 
Is there a time limit to redeem N.A.P. benefits in Puerto Rico and beyond this limit benefits are expunged from an individual's account? (In U.S. if S.N.A.P. benefits are not redeemed after one year, benefits are expunged.)198.22.236.230 (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Food Stamps? 

message: What are the regulations which enable a N.A.P. individual to designate someone to be an authorized representative and user of the N.A.P. individual's benefit card? 
Am I correct in saying that the N.A.P. benefit card is only usable in Puerto Rico?198.22.236.230 (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of N.A.P. Benefit Card by Authorized Representatives 

message: Looking at this as part of the ongoing FA sweeps.  I have some significant concerns about this article possibly not meeting the FA criteria.  It is sourced almost entirely to US government reports, which is concerning that independent critical commentary is not present.  Second, most of the statistics are from prior to 2010, suggesting that currency and possibly accuracy are concerns here. This needs either massive work or a featured article review. Hog Farm  Talk 03:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I made lots of updates; added more current sources and eliminated outdated data / tables. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA concerns