User:Greenflowers04/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Caseworker (social work)
 * The lead includes a great introduction that clearly describes Social Work. The lead is concise, giving a well detailed explanation of the topic without going overboard. The article's content is relative to Social Work, with it being up to date. In some sections of the article, there could be more detail, such as in the Stages in Social Casework Process, but there is no irrelevant content in any of the sections. This article also mentions that social workers help those who need adjustment but cannot do it on their own. There are many sources listed in this article with a lot of links in the reference section, helping to know where the editors got their information from. Some sources are from the 1900s while some are from the 2000s all the way up to 2018. There are a lot of books used as well as some links to websites, such as Harvard for example. However, there should be an update on references and more added. There are many authors, especially those from different universities nation wide. In the further reading section, more books are mentioned. I clicked on some links, and all that are mentioned seem to be working and available for use. This article is well written, clear and easy to read. No grammatical errors or spelling errors are seen which indicates that the editors are doing a great job at catching any. The article is reflects on major points of social work, but lacks images. There are people talking on the talk page, noting that there was a modify of some areas. It's strengths are the references that are used and the detail put into the article, but there could be an update to the references as well as images added.
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1077559519865616?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider&
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1077559519865616?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider&
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1077559519865616?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider&

Option 2

 * Child and family services
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes child and family services. In the lead, there are plenty of links that lead you to other pages to go into further detail about things that relate to child and family services. The lead is well detailed without being over detailed. There is a lot of background history and history about child and family services in some sections of the page. There is no irrelevant content on this page which allows for the links and references to be accurate and helpful when further reading on this topic. Although there are a lot of references, they are from the early 2000s and early 2010s, which could call for adding and giving updated references. The links that I have clicked have worked and have very relevant content to child and family services. The article is very well written and clear, with the grammar being correct and no spelling errors. Along with that, the organization of the article is great, it is very easy to read and keep up with. The talk page does not seem very active, and there are some editors that have done a good job on bringing the page to where it needs to be. This article also includes a graph but does not have a link that I can see to reference this, only a data source at the bottom of the photo. Overall, this is a great article, but it could use some improvement.
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740917302062
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740917302062

Option 3

 * Child protection
 * This article is well written, however, there are some issues with the page. It is written clearly and is easy to understand. The lead has two major sections that it covers, one about Child Protection and right under it, one about Child Protection Systems. That could be a little confusing for some people coming to the page for one thing and seeing two. There is a lot of content in the article, almost being too long. Although it is long, the content seems to be relevant to the topic. There are many references in this article, however, I noticed that there is an image with no link under it to show where the photo came from. The photo is of a little boy kicking a ball, which I think is not really the best picture that could be used for this article. I am confused why a picture of a boy kicking a ball was used for child protection. It would have been nice to see another graph like the previous article I talked about. The links that I have clicked on work and take you to other pages. There are a good amount of references listed and they are fairly up to date. I noticed a lot of the further readings are linked to United Kingdom websites. There were people on the talk page, especially mentioning that there should be improvement. Overall, I feel that there is room for improvement on the organization of this article, and should have much less detail than it does have.
 * https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583
 * https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583
 * https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583