User talk:Butnotsowithus/sandbox

Peer review

Caseworker (social work)

General comments:

I was looking at the intro on the article page, and it looks like that could use some work. I wonder whether the part about the "political caseworkers" even fits into this, since the article is specifically about social case work.

That leads me to another question: would it make more sense for the article title to be changed to casework (social work)? Maybe not, since you might hear "caseworker" heard more often than "casework." But it seems to me that the article is more about "casework" in general, than caseworkers.

I think it's important to make the article consistent: casework or case work?

I saw you added links to other articles, I think it's great to do that as much as we can!

As I mention, I think a history subheading is great. And it seems you might be able to make more subheadings in the Multicultural section, maybe by continent/region/country etc.

My edits in are bold, things to delete in italics.

I know you didn't write this paragraph, but I think it needs some edits that you could help with:

Social casework is a primary approach '''what is a primary approach? Does it mean THE primary approach?'''and method of social work, concerned with the adjustment and development of the individual and, in some instances, couples, towards more satisfying human relations. In social case work, the relationship between a caseworker and their client is one of support, focused on "enabling an individual in solving a problem through self-efforts." '''Where is this citation from? If it's known, it should be cited, if not, then reworded.'''

This sentence is way too long and complicated: The social casework relationship is a dynamic interaction of attitudes and emotions between the social caseworker and the client with the purpose of satisfying the clients psychosocial needs to achieve a better intrapersonal (interactions and transactions) adjustment by the client within the respective environment.

Psychosocial assessment is a key tool used in casework; it is the initial assessment of a client's way of adapting to both stressful and normal situations, currently, in the past, and possibly in the future. current, relevant past, and possible future modes of adaptation to both stressful situations and normal living situations. Problem solving is the intent behind every social casework process; the caseworker doesn't solve the problem for the client, but helps the person in the situation to be equipped in solving or facing the problem adequately within the individual's weaknesses and strengths to the end of overall development.

I think it makes sense to add a section about history. Just call it History, because it's obvious that it's the history of social case work.

The history of social case work is closely tied to the advent of social work as a general professional discipline. In the late nineteenth century, the formation of the Charity Organization Society, and the Settlement movement represented the beginning of efforts towards alleviating industrial poverty in the US?.[13] While social case work was a primary method of intervention, it was not until Mary Richmond published Social Diagnosis in 1917 that a formal definition for social case work began to formulatewas formulated.[9] In Social Diagnosis, Richmond advocated for working with - I would italicize with and on clients, rather than on them, and for gaining "sympathetic understanding of the old world backgrounds from which the client came" in lieu of making generalizations or assumptions.[8] The term social diagnosis came to refer to "a systematic way for helping professionals to gather information and study client problems" based on each client's unique background, problems, and individualized needs.[8]

I wonder if we need to cite right after a direct quotation, or if it's enough to cite at the end of the sentence as you did. I'd need to double check.

Asylum in the United States

General comments

I like the federal and state subheadings, and your plan for expanding this section.

I would change the subheading List of NGOs that offer supportive services for refugees to Organizations with supportive services.

Just one specific edit: Availability of public assistance programs can vary depending on which states within the United States refugees are allocated to resettle in. I would write Availability of public assistance programs can vary depending on which states refugees are resettled to.

Overall I think it's looking good and will definitely make the articles stronger! I know the Asylum one is long, but definitely try to read over more of the existing writing in both articles, because there seem to be a lot of room for improvement. bellamelodia (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephanie's Peer Review
Hi Stephanie,

I really enjoyed your sandbox contribution and hope you find my edits and suggestions helpful. If you have any questions, let me know.

Social Case Work

Lead: in regards to the lead, I think this area could use some improvements. Even the first sentence could be written better. I also think you could expand this lead a little bit. Since the lead is suppose to briefly reflect the entire wikipedia article, you might save expanding the lead until you've added all your edits.

Grammar/edit: This sentence here seems a bit dense: In Social Diagnosis, Richmond advocated for working with clients, rather than on them, and for gaining "sympathetic understanding of the old world backgrounds from which the client came" in lieu of making generalizations or assumptions.

maybe you could paraphrase this sentence for clarity.

structure: I think you should definitely add a new section for history of social case work. I think that the article is skinny enough as it is so that you are able to add that section without combining it with the lead section. I think the lead still needs to be expanded, but without adding the necessary history of casework. I might also think about adding the national social worker's code of ethics?? that might add something new and specific to social case work.

neutral/balance (just a suggestion): Do you think that you should mention the strengths and weaknesses of social case work? I'm thinking of the micro, mezo, and macro levels that regard social casework as being an intervention and not prevention. AND how in social case work one might normally deal with advocacy on an individual level, but miss to address the structures of inequality that has exacerbated their client's situation to begin with. There are also pros of social case work too.

sources: some of your sources seem a little less scholary. Such as your NASW foundation mary richmond, but I struggle to find how you would convey that information without using the sources you have. So I think it will be up to your discretion.

Asylum in the United States

Lead: the lead seems okay, but I am not sure it accurately reflects the whole wikipedia article.

Grammar Editing: none that are too concerning

Structure: The Film section of your wikipedia article seems a bit off to me. I find myself going back and forth on weather to keep it as it is, deleting it all together, or suggesting to restructure it in a way where it doesn't have a whole section to itself for such a small portion of information.

I think as you know, expanding your section on federal programs would do a lot of good for this article. But I'm sure you know this.

if you are looking to expand another area of this article, I suggest the human rights activism section. It could use a little help.

neutral/balance: The article seems balanced to me. This includes your contributions to the article.

sources:

I would say that a lot of the wikipedia article as a whole is missing sources. Just a few sections that I have seen are "priority one," "priority three," and"INS v. Cardoza."

Overall, great work! I am surprised by how much material and info you have been able to gather. For your Areas article: Asylum in the United States, I purposefully commented on things you could add to the existing wikipedia article because I saw that other comments have already been addressed by an earlier peer review.

Rbuell (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)