User:801johnna/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

 * 1) School resource office

2. Foster care in the United States

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

 * 1) My practice experience includes coaching and mentoring systems impacted youth, ages 16-22, through a non-profit community supported supper club.  These youth are currently in foster care, have experiences with the juvenile justice system, or both.  Many of these youth have polarizing experiences with SROs and interact with them daily.  SROs directly impact these youth in our contemporary public school system.  This article aligns well with my researched area of Global Poverty and Practice.
 * 2) Foster care and dependency court directly impact the youth who participate in the youth-run supper club, Cora Jean's Old Skool Café. As a coach and mentor for these youth, it is important to have a comprehensive understanding of today's foster care system and all aspects of the child welfare system. Knowledge of its origins and history in the United States  and specific to California will provide a clearer picture of what these at-risk youth face within the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, enabling informed advocacy for better practices and community-based involvement.

Evaluate the article
Article 1 Evaluation--School Resource Officers

The introductory is clear in defining, but doesn't include any description of sections and lacks sources on some of the information. The viewpoint in this article is a bit unbalanced but may be due to lack of research and empirical evidence to assert framework or certain arguments. The intro is concise but to its detriment.

The content and sections are developed and relevant to the main topic. Content needs to be further developed and isn't up-to-date. I found most sources cited are over a decade old and some details and important current and recent events are completely missing. For instance, there is no information on the Justice Departments CIR of the response to the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas where 19 children and two teachers were killed on May 24, 2022. There are some gaps and the content flow needs developed. The "Outcomes" heading is confusing and state laws information should be more detailed and specific.

This article needs to expand on detailing the job duties--day to day of SROs and their impacts on those they serve. The tone and balance seem neutral, but the talk page says otherwise. There is no proponent argument to keep SROs. This would be a section of this topic to research. The "effectiveness" paragraph is written in a way that is very hard to follow and interpret. Maybe rewording or breaking compound sentence into digestible ideas would help.

The sources and references are all over the place in this Wiki article. A couple of sources are not linked, cut and paste didn't bring up the reference. One source link takes me to a 404 page not found error. Quite a few of the sources are links to the NASCRO material, so government published info--relevant, current, and thorough. One source links to the Senate Bill, so detailing legislation. Many sources are links to local news coverage of SRO incidents of excessive force. Once citation reference is formatted incorrectly. Besides citation 38, which is a great secondary source, the latter sources in this article are missing or need work.

The article is organized and somewhat well-written but needs work. I think there is one grammatical or typing error. Overall, this article seems like it is in the beginning stages of development and aspects of the SRO debates need to be added. This article has no images. The talk page is fairly short with only three to four relevant comments. These comments include being critical of the neutrality and calls out unsubstantiated claims made in the article.

2. Article 2 Evaluation--Foster Care in the United States

The lead includes an introductory sentence that is clear and concise. The lead doesn't include a brief description of the article's sections, but overall may be overly detailed. Style could improve. The content under history isn't well developed and seems to skip from the 1890s to 1997. No details on foster care expansion or changes throughout the 20th century. The "Foster Care by State" section needs developing, as noted in the talk page. The states listed should be updated, last stats are 2012. The article deals with equity gaps and addresses underrepresented populations.

Tone and balance of the article are balance. There are no heavily biased claims, but the stated case law implicitly highlights the need for regulation, oversight, and reform or abolition. The article doesn't discuss the court proceedings, break down the at-risk determining factors qualifications, or viewpoints of the child attorneys or social workers. While some sections are developed more than others, I don't think the article attempts to persuade and favor.

Overall this article includes reliable secondary sources with many sources directly linked to case law or case law review. There are a few dead links and one link missing. There are a handful of news article links--Baltimore, Washington Post, Naples Daily. The last source is a hopeful one providing latest running info on state reforms. The Children's Rights and Youth Law archives are used throughout. Thorough sources written by legislation, diverse academics, and journalists. The sources include marginalized individuals. There may be more up-to-date sources for some sections/info, but these sources are very reliable and informative.

The quality and organization is concise, clear, and easy to read. This topic is discussed in the talk pages. There is one grammatical error, no spelling errors, and once sentence that is unclear. The article is well-organized. The images enhance the understanding of historical events and provide clear chart information. The two images are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulation. They are visually appealing.

The talk pages discuss missing info on state specific details, grandparent placement, coercive practices, etc. There is extensive edit info and many external link modifications throughout the talk page. The talk page informed me that this article was used for GPP 105 in 2022 and includes my plan to contribute to the article. I don't think it is part of any WikiProjects.

My overall impression is that the article has been well developed but missing key information to help get a comprehensive view of the foster care and child welfare systems in the United States. The strengths are the case law details, "Critical debates" section, and the addition of the "foster care structure" section--but this needs more development. The article isn't poorly developed. It needs up-to-date info and a few more sections to make it a robust article, but the potential is there.