User:LizCottle/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Workfare

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I previously worked at a work-first job training facility in New York City. It is piece of welfare policy that has peaked my interested since then as it impacts so many individuals who are receiving unemployment insurance and other benefits, like TANF in the United States. The idea of work first is integrated so heavily into the welfare system in the United States as it is a product of the welfare regime that has been adopted. Other countries have different models depending on their welfare state. What is interesting about this topic is the intersection of so many issues impacting people in poverty including education, childcare, TANF, domestic violence, skills development, homelessness, etc. I was disappointed that the article did not attempt to connect all of these issues to workfirst policies. Additionally, it is extremely relevant to make comparisons to other countries with similar and different welfare regimes. I felt this article could do a better job of providing such examples.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

While the lead sentence and paragraph are concise, I did not feel that they provided enough information for readers to fully grasp the concept of workfare. It could go into more depth about workfare's connections to existing welfare policies and how it is different than other rationales. The article itself is very short and would benefit from more details and media, specifically on intersectionality topics like race and gender, and related topics including education, childcare, domestic violence, homelessness, etc. The talk page seems to evidence that the article hasn't been evaluated since 2012. Therefore, much of the content could use to be updated. While many statements do have citations, it can be assumed most would need to be updated due to the 10 year gap between edits. I found the article to read in a neutral tone, however it lacks viewpoints from multiple countries and individual perspectives. In general, more needs to be added to the article to increase its credibility, as it is currently rated a C. Many people in the talk page indicate making "sweeping" edits so it can be assumed that the article has changed many times.