Talk:Single parent

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rkamal83 (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jseidlitz (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jseidlitz.

2010 Request a link

A Request for a link to Single Parents Network - Resources for Parents that are single. Online free 24/7 sharing support, advice and information on a range of resources for single parents. We have been online since 1997 and have grown to a discussion board of 23,000 plus members at Single Family Voices The site has been up and running as a non commercial site for over a decade. It has changed so many live and legal writings, and many a thesis has used our site. It is a hub of single parent information and support like the wiki but was started long before, but with the same spirit as. Single Parents Network is a collection of what other single parents have added over the decade plus years. I feel after so long, and with out monetary gain, that the site has established itself as a hub for the diverse needs of single parents, and should be noted. SoloParent (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

For the united kingdom and america, they should provide a percentage, like australia. it's no good saying how many millions are single without saying what the population of the country is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I find some of the stats confusing e.g. - If 80.6% of single parents are mothers and 16% are fathers then I assume there is also a third category? I assume this is grandparents or legal guardians but they are not single parents? Maybe the article should be renamed Phileadie (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit Revert

I reverted the edit of 71.163.174.31, which disrupted the layout. It was unreferenced, but for anyone who wants to do some research and improve the article, it might be a hint:

1.) Quality of life: 6 of 10 children raised by single mothers are near or below the poverty line

2.) Women who are in poverty have trouble getting out of poverty because earnings are low; sometimes there is no support from outside sources being other family members or the resources to make their situation better. Some are dependent totally on welfare.

3.) Single-parents having poor employment opportunities

Se'taan (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More information

There needs to be more information using an unbiased view. There is a great deal of negative information about this topic, but there is a little bit of positive. Mlandi11 (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the first sentence of this pageis supported by the evidence. The link supporting it does not actually point to a specific reference, but to the home page of an advocacy group in support of single parenting. I think that's problematic according to Wikipedia's policies? I find the 'in general in Western society' line to be very problematic. It may be true for the country where that website is based (UK) in which case a reference supporting that needs to be included. For example in Canada equal parenting is not uncommon, and 'since January 1, 1998 joint legal parental custody after divorce is usually between both parents in the Netherlands. In over 90 percent of the divorces after 1998, shared parental custody continues to exist.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playethic (talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

'In general in Western society' claims - including in first sentence - not verifiable (and evidence points to inaccurate?)

I don't think that the first sentence of this page is supported by the evidence. The link supporting it does not point to a specific source reference, but to the home page of an advocacy group in support of single parenting. I think that's problematic according to Wikipedia's policies? I find the 'in general in Western society' line (and references to its premise elsewhere on the page) to be very problematic. It may be true for the country where that website is based (UK) in which case a reference supporting that needs to be included. For example in Canada equal parenting is not uncommon (1), and 'since January 1, 1998 joint legal parental custody after divorce is usually between both parents in the Netherlands. In over 90 percent of the divorces after 1998, shared parental custody continues to exist.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playethic (talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The laws of Germany, as another example, seem to shift more in that direction, eg.: Zaunegger v. Germany, Appl. No. 22028/04, 3 December 2009: The application by the father for joint parental authority cannot be denied solely because of mother‟s refusal if her consent cannot be substituted by a court‟s decision http://www.haps.bham.ac.uk/primarycare/cbme/documents/AHRC_WS1/Nikolina_international_legal_framework_for_co-parenting.pdf

I think 'in general in Western society', with no attribution, is not supported enough with the current links supplied.

(1) In Canada, 'the 1990s saw a rapid rise in the popularity of joint custody; by the year 2000, well over one-third of children (37%) were placed in the custody of both divorcing parents' http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/lib-bib/rep-rap/2005/2004_6/p3.html

(2) http://folk.uio.no/torkildl/divnet/Papers/Spruijt.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playethic (talk • contribs) 06:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This article was awful.

Aside from being confusing, this article covering singe parenting is unclear, one-sided, and poorly written. I suggest a complete re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.216.28 (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Some sentences are flat wrong. I have zero perspective on non-U.S. uses of the phrase, but in my part of America, a single mother is unmarried, not merely a primary caregiver.OptimistInChief (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The article seemed pretty sexually biased. A Single Parent is a parent who is not residing in the same home as the other parent of the child. Primary caregiver or not is irrelevant to the term. Both parents are single parents if they are not residing together. Most women are given the role of primary caregiver by the courts simply because they are women. Most children today have spent time in some form of Daycare/Preschool as a result of the need to work by the parents even in 2 parent homes. The need to learn and to socially interact is another reason that children are placed in Daycare/Preschool. Making the statement that this is a reason to deny custody to a father is inaccurate and a sexually biased view. Time spent with the parent who has less time with the child is also not visitation time, it is parenting time. Both parents have the same financial responsibilities to the child and both should be working to fufill that obligation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.129.8.49 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

REWRITE

This article is terribly confusing and needs attention from an expert Lotje ツ (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edu assignment - to do

To do list... Mother as Primary Caregiver

The information that I plan to add to this site to enhance its content is a section pertaining to the mother as a primary caregiver. This section will address the following topics:

• Gender role/changes for newly single mothers
• Different types of single mothers in the world: Single by divorce, death, incarceration, abandonment, choice (women who want children and adopt but aren't married).
• description of responsibilities
• stats pertaining to single mothers found through research (which I am currently still looking through sources as to what specifically).
• Why we typically see more single mothers as primary caregivers as opposed to fathers.
• outcome of child due to single mother parenting as opposed to the "traditional" family setting.
• How to teach children not to have negative perceptions towards male figures in their lives as a result of an absent male figure in their life

Any other suggestions are welcome and I will update this discussion topic as new ideas spark up.

Resources that I have found regarding this topic:

• http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/uom-tsw112508.php
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/2085047?seq=8
• http://www.natefacs.org/JFCSE/v21no1/v21no1Robbins.pdf
• Single-Parent Families - Mother-only And Father-only Families
• Children of Incarcerated Parents
• http://www.parentsinaction.net/english/Prison/Children%20of%20Incarcerated%20Parents.htm
• Single Mothers Raising Children with “Male-Positive” Attitudes
• Women and employment: changing lives and new challenges
• http://www.all-about-motherhood.com/
• Role Conflict of the Single Parent
• The Effects of the Mother's Employment on the Family and the Child
• Working Mothers
• http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SkkU480ttLgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=single+parents+fulfilling+dual+gender+roles&ots=DUq3Ix3Wnl&sig=eAIsuV7jvXlVt2XcXcjVmIN9Dus#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjc112 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ejzK-DLpz9gC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=Demographics+of+Single+Parent&ots=A3wFHfNuKV&sig=-a6hMAxwjMcwMYqf86T2RtnO_Ec#v=onepage&q&f=false
• http://www.prb.org/Articles/2001/TheRiseandFallofSingleParentFamilies.aspx

Mjc112 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Mjc112 (talk) Mjc112 (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

additions/revisions to the article

I plan to add a section to this article discussing children and divorce. It will be mainly focused on how divorce affects children and what parents can do to help. Here's a short list of a few things I plan to include: •psychological effects on children •ways to discuss the issue of divorce with children •how children are affected by which parent they live with, and how much time they spend with them •ways that divorce can effect kids in academics •co-parenting after divorce ... and many more topics as well. I will probably organize it by first going over the ways to talk to kids, then psychological effects, then what happens after divorce has occurred.

Here are a few resources I have found to help me with this so far.

Helping Your Child Through a Divorce: http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/talk/help_child_divorce.html Children Coping with Divorce: http://children.webmd.com/kids-coping-divorce Single Parenting: Co-Parenting After Divorce: http://extension.unh.edu/family/documents/s_share.pdf Divorce: A Parent's Guide for Supporting Children: http://nasponline.org/resources/parenting/divorce_ho.aspx Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pdfs/fcs482.pdf Just Whom Is This Divorce 'Good' For?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110402304.html How Much Does Divorce Affect Kids?: http://abcnews.go.com/us/story?id=89992%7Cnewspaper=ABC News

Nll27 (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please reformat the above citations, you should not use the ref tag on the talk page, as it just gives us not so useful footnoes here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Single Parenting: Father

I plan to add a greater amount of information pertaining to the ever-growing single-father population. This type of parenting is no longer unheard of and must be taken seriously. Though men may have a slight stigma of not always being around for their children or give the mother the right to the children after divorce, this is not the case. Information provided in the sites below will help to back-up my stance on this matter.

Sites:

http://www.singlefather.org/

http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm

http://www.fathers.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=220&Itemid=56

http://www.singleparentmagazine.net/single-parent-statistics/

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701.pdf

http://deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php

http://family.jrank.org/pages/1575/Single-Parent-Families-Mother-Only-Father-Only-Families.html

www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/changing-father.aspx

http://www.singleparentsuccess.org/stats.html

http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics

http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf

http://www.singlefather.org/forums/forum.php

http://www.catalyst.org/publication/252/working-parents

http://www.fathersforgood.org/ffg/en/fathers_essential/count.html

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/single-parents-around-the-world/

http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_wifis02c02.pdf

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm

http://www.ecdip.org/docs/pdf/IF%20Father%20Res%20Summary%20(KD).pdf

http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/macarthur/working%20papers/wp-mclanahan2.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gab102091 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Important to note that a great many children are born to single parents, about half of all children born in the U.S. (don't have source offhand). So please don't assume that all single parents are due to divorce. OptimistInChief (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Single Parenting Adoption To Do List

I will be adding a section on Single Parenting Adoption. This form of adoption is hard enough, and I will be explaining the whole process a single parent will go through, including a real-life experience journalized by a person who travelled oversees to adopt.

http://www.adopting.org/adoptions/single-parent-adoption.html

http://www.adoptionservices.org/adoption_special/adoption_single.htm

http://www.adopt.org/assembled/single_parents.html

http://www.holtinternational.org/philippines/faq.shtml

http://www.adoptvietnam.org/adoption/single-parent-adoption.htm

http://www.adoptionstogether.org/ResourcesandSupport/SingleParentAdoption.aspx

http://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/topics/singleparentadoptions.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stboser (talk • contribs) 03:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't forget to sign your posts. Overall, I think your planning is a good start, but a lot of links you've above seem to have potential reliablity problems. What makes them reliable? Who is the author and the publisher? You should list that information here (compare what other groups have done in their outline, for example see this. Please list such information besides pure URLs, and we can discuss it further. I'd suggest you try to look for book sources (on Google Books) and academic papers, rater than websites you can find through Google. Also, remember that self-published sources are not reliable, that includes blogs and forums (and I see at least one obvious forum above: http://www.singlefather.org/forums/forum.php). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Review~Megan Callahan

So after looking at the different articles that have been developed by our classmates and the different things they've been able to incorporate into their articles, I'd say we should try to find a way to work illustrations or pictures into our revisions of this article. It would really add to our article's appearance.

Also, I want to suggest us collectively going over the information previously posted in this article and maybe fine tuning it to be more clear in communicating information of each section and getting rid of "fluff" information that isn't really needed in the article.

Using inline references to other pages is also a good tool to use when writing our sections so we don't have to go off on tangents explaining a concept that has its very own wikipedia page, so keep that in mind when writing about your topics!!

Mjc112 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Review~Natalie LaBarbera

I agree with everything that Megan said. I really think what we mostly need to do is to get rid of all the extra stuff that is on there now that we don't want to be. Also, along the lines of illustrations maybe we could find some sort of charts showing just how many single parents are out there and what kind. Also, maybe for the adoption studies we could provide links to websites about them like some other people have done. That way if anyone wants to find out more information about adoption they will be able to do so quickly. Nll27 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Review~Brian Bitner

I do agree with the other reviews. In the Demographics Section of the article, I found the facts to be a bit unorganized. Perhaps, creating paragraphs of similar countries or something to that extent would make it easier to understand. This article just needs some re-organizing or editing to make the information flow and easier to comprehend. Also, the article needs more citations as some paragraphs are cited well, others are not cited at all.

Brb94 (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Review_Nelson

Your article is a very good start. The topics into which you break the topic of single parent down are all important, as well as the order in which they appear -- I would suggest no alternative. Furthermore, your links to other wikipedia entries is helpful. All the 'problems' are small problems -- not structural, but sentence-level suggestions. In the opening paragraph, the following sentence has a comma splice and could use a reference (since it is controversial): "In the UK and U.S.A., for example .... parent that carries the most responsibility when parents separate." Also, the following sentence in the Public Policy Debate section could be made clearer through rewording: "Children from any family structural .... ability to nurture, safeguard and monitor." Overall, however, very good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittsoc25 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Pittsoc25 (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Review - Eser Y.

Your group has a nice start, I will suggest a few things that hopefully will be helpful. First of all, the article is still confusing, especially in the demographics section, which includes brief and disorganized stats from various countries. Maybe you can divide up this section into two; 1)demographics (discuss US demographics in more detail and with better organization) and 2) single parenthood around the world (expand to more countries etc.). Second, your proposed outline seems nice but is not clear what section will follow which one. Currently it seems as if the entry will cover single mothers (and all of its subsections) first, effect of single-parenting on children second (even though it says divorce and children, i think it is more appropriate to focus on single parenthood and children, the divorce and children was somewhat covered in Implications of divorce already), and finally single fathers. It could be better to cover single mothers (since it seems to be more common), then single fathers, then the children raised in these households. One last comment; doesn't the "outcome of child due to single mother parenting as opposed to the traditional family setting" point in single mother section overlap with the other person's covering "children and divorce"? Good luck! Esery (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Review~Steve Boser

I agree with both Megan and Natalie. I think the "fluff," as Natalie puts it needs to be taken off of this page immediately. If you read the comments above ours, the ones about the article before we added onto it, they are comments that talk poorly on this article. I think a complete revamp is on its way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stboser (talk • contribs) 19:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

References review

I've added a number of requests for missing date (page numbers and such). Some works need links to their respective websites. Several websites don't seem reliable, if you want to use them, please explain how they are reliable: children.webmd.com , kidshealth.org , jrank.org , adoptionstogether.org , adoptionservices.org , adopting.org , gingerbread.org.uk . The Lancet reference should be quoted and linked directly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to the children.webmd.com and kidshealth.org references, I used these two in my part of the article and I do believe they are reliable. WebMD is a very widely used website, that even doctors use. (I know this because my dad is one and he uses it) As for the kidshealth.org, I'm not positive about it's reliability, but it seemed okay to me because it was and organization (.org, not just .com) If necessary, I will make changes to my section, but I thought they were good sources. Nll27 (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. It is a good start; how about you ask other editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they say? If they agree with you, we can keep them and tell the Good Article reviewer that they are reliable if he asks. If other editors disagree, we will know we have to revise them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, I'll do that. Thanks! Nll27 (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Helpful tips

Hey, I though I would point out a few things I noticed when fixing a few minor tipos.

"We also need to keep in mind that divorce will bring about a change for everyone involved. Parents really need to consider who will make which decisions, and how much they need to discuss things with each other. There are things such as food, clothing, school, friends, dating, extracurricular activities, doctor visits, and religion, that will need to be talked about. Parents need to make sure they communicate with each other, and the children involved, about all of these things listed and who to talk to about them. What about when parents don't agree on these topics? Well, first, they should try to have a civilized conversation with each other. However, if this isn't working, then they could consider revising the custody over the children, and coming up with some new ground rules."

This is just one example of a paragraph that needs to be reworded to eliminate words such as "should," and preferably questions should not be present either. My group had some issues with this while working on advantages/disadvantages of Joint custody (United States) as we had some similar language present in those sections, which ends up being difficult to eliminate much of the time as you almost lose some of what the author is trying to say if you are not careful in altering it. Also, this is much more minor, but there should only be one period after the end of a sentence in wiki (I fixed most instances of this haha).

Also, even if every sentence is sourced by the same source, make sure to source sentence by sentence. Though this may seem tedious, if you end up splitting up a paragraph at some point, if the whole thing is not sourced, then the top half will be unsourced.

Hope this helps :)

Kgw2 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your tips are much appreciated, and I fully agree with the suggestions here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

things we still need to do

• divorce statistics
• other debates (sources)
• choice parent
• check over all sections for grammar and other things
• if we find more about demographics
• make sure everything's organized
• check over introductory section

Nll27 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for further development of Mother as primary caregiver?

After editing Mother as a primary caregiver, I am curious to see what others think needs to be included in this section. Any suggestions for topics to be discussed pertaining to this section are welcome to further develop this topic of Single parenting.

Mjc112 (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Preeeliminary review

Since I see a lot of work has been done over the past few days, here are few issues from a quick overview about issues that need to be addressed before GA (a more detailed review will follow within a few days).

• per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, lead should be a comprehensive summary (abstract) of the rest of the article, and should not contain new information. It does not seem to me like your lead is either.

• the titles of some sections are improperly capitalized, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• existing footnotes are terribly formatted; please provide missing information

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Further comments:

• "Single parent adoption" sections seems US-centric
• "Adoption process" seems very much like a how-to guide, and bullet form is frowned upon on Wikipedia. Needs to be rewritten into prose.
• "Single parents in the Media" needs similar treatment. Is it comprehensive? And perhaps even more importantly, is it non-trivial? See Wikipedia:Trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Single parent/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ResMar 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC), AIRcorn (talk)

I have just finished off my previous review, just awaiting improvements/comments, so will start on this one soon. Hopefully I will be able to have some comments fleshed out over the weekend. Thanks to MarioResident for your comments, feel free to stick around and offer as much advice as you want. It is always good to have extra eyes on these. AIRcorn (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've weeded out the over-referencing, did some ce, and added three tags referring to issues with the article. Most especially the references need to be formatted asap. ResMar 04:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I respectfully disagree with the claim of over-referencing the article. PS. At the same time, I do realize that the guidelines for what exactly needs to be cited are still evolving. I simply prefer to err on the side of caution. There is a relevant discussion on WP:CITE, too, and I expect we are still months (years) before this particular MoS issue is settled. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 08:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just a note that I've informed students that Good Articles reviews have been posted for some articles and they should reply to them ASAP. Thank you for taking up this review! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and suggestions. We will fix the references as soon as possible.

Nll27 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, how do you suggest we reference if you believe what we have done is too much? As stated above, our Professor instructed us to reference this way so I am confused as to what is acceptable when we are referencing. Mjc112 (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• For Good status we only require references for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". I personally like the article to contain more references than this, but to merely pass the requirements that is all that is needed. So as far as good articles go referencing every sentence or just the end of a paragraph can both be acceptable. Saying that my personal preference is something in between; "the likely to be challenged" part of the criteria gives us reviewers a bit of leeway here. I think at least every paragraph should have a reference and statements that fit the above requirements should also be referenced, even if it is the same as the one used to reference the whole paragraph. For example if you present a statistic in the middle of the paragraph I would like to see a reference near that statistic, even if everything in the paragraph is referenced to a single source. Of course if a paragraph uses multiple references then they should be presented in such a way that it is obvious to the reader which reference applies to which statement. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Start review by ResMar

Reposting here would be in of itself redundant; see User talk:Resident Mario#GA comments and User talk:Piotrus#GA Review - Single Parent. For starters:

• The lead is too short. As a rule of thumb, the lead should contain some information from each topic covered in the article. Leads generally do not contain references, as they state and summarize things that are already covered in the body. You should do this last, however; unlike a school paper, encyclopedic articles have a tenancy of evolving as you write them that makes it difficult to prepare a lead beforehand.
• Single parent adoption is very US-centric; although you mention global statistics in the first section, this article in general, and this section specifically, is biased towards the United States.
• Children and divorce sounds a lot like a how-to from "Too Bad to Stay, Too Good to Leave" or something similar. Wikipedia is not How-to; while it is acceptable to discuss expert recommendations on the effect of divorce on children, dispensing advice in "first, second, and third" format is not. An encyclopedia would be more interested in Implications of divorce, and in fact this section is not clearly linked to the topic - for instance, we would want to know what percentage of divorces end in single parentage (ae. abandonment).
• However, I think in most divorces the parent usually has to give some guidance to the children to get them through everything. Never, ever use the first person on Wikipedia.
• Many of your references are missing the proper formatting, and there is a very big, very ugly cluster of errors at the bottom of your {{reflist}}.
• The article needs a copyedit.

I hadn't meant to act as reviewer, and ended up on the page by accident; nonetheless I suppose I could review it, or at least start you off in that regard (since Aircorn was here first either way). Cheers, ResMar 22:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We are currently working on the lead section to expand it. I also have reworded parts in the children and divorce section to make it sound a little better, and have taken out all things in the first-person. And we are also working on weeding out all of the references not used, and fixing the bad ones. We will also do the copyedit soon. Nll27 (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

For quicker reference formatting, you may want to use editrefs and the refToobar, and in general look over this page, which lists many of the useful tools developed by other users for Wikipedia. ResMar 23:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Nll27 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• So far I agree with everything MarioResident has said in his review. The tone of the prose also needs to be made more encyclopaedic. At the moment it still sounds like an essay in some places. sentences like "This article will discuss topics such as demographics, multipule debates, mother and father as primary caregivers, single parent adoption, and divorce" are not really useful for the lead. It should not describe what you are going to say, but instead summarize what is being said. I am also very concerned about the image of the single father. Concerned enough to think that it should be removed. Looking at its upload description there is nothing to suggest that it is actually a single father; in fact it appears highly unlikely that he is. As well as being possibly untrue (never good for an encyclopaedia) it could raise some BLP concerns. We are a very public medium and if the mother of the child saw that photo they might take offense at us suggesting that their partner is a single father. AIRcorn (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Photo's description does confirm he is a father, but I agree - there is nothing to suggest he is a single father. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these suggestions, we will work to fix them as soon as possible. Nll27 (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Once you are ready, call me up again and I will go over what you did and give more detailed comments. ResMar 04:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This review is approaching a week inactivity mark. Please post an update on what has changed soon, or it may be closed due to no activity from the editors (students) involved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have edited some parts of the children and divorce section, and also posted a part in the lead section. I will be working on more in the upcoming week. Nll27 (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the bulk part of the review—ae. I haven't gone into fine details—and you need to hunker down and start making progress. ResMar 00:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note to editors: please see User talk:Resident Mario#Single Parent article. ResMar 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have begun redoing the children and divorce section. I removed everything that was there previously, and have put in two of the paragraphs you suggested, one about effects (including different age groups) and the other about expert recommendations. Nll27 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm still looking to find some information about how often divorce ends with single parenting and abandonment.Nll27 (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I plan on reviewing and editing the lead section of the article, by the end of next week. Is there anything within the mother as a primary caregiver section that should be edited?? Thanks for all your help! Mjc112 (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"By the end of next week" that's a really long time for a GAC. I can do a more detailed review now, but I'm hesitant to make detailed comments on many of the sections, which still need a lot of improvement. ResMar 18:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to finish the children and divorce section tonight, provided that I can find current data on how many divorces end in single parenting. If you have any suggestions or detailed comments on things that I need to change in the two paragraphs I already redid just let me know. Nll27 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do a more detailed review tommorow or sometime this weekened. ResMar 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have chosen to delete my picture as there was no proof as to whether the picture was of a single father or not. I am wondering if you have any suggestions for my article or for finding another picture I would really appreciate your help. Gab102091 (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We really appreciate your help. I understand that you are "hesitant" to comment on our section but with all do respect we are students editing Wikipedia as a class project and we are not experienced Wikipedia editors. Pushing us in the right direction as to what needs to be improved will help us do our job editing this article. I am working on the lead section a little bit tonight and going through the mother as a primary caregiver section to make some changes as need--your suggestions on improving this section would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! Mjc112 (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Right now, the easiest thing I recommend you do is write importScript('User:Dr pda/editrefs.js'); on your User:<your username>/vector.js page, and then use this utility to fix your references, which are an absolutely horrible mash at the moment. It will create an Edit references link in your toolbox when editing; click on it to open up all of your citations at once and fix them. ResMar 03:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, since I've never worked on Wikipedia before I will ask my professor tomorrow how to use this. I will post on here once I have done so. Thanks again!! Mjc112 (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have entirely redone the children and divorce section. Please let me know what you think of it, and if it needs any further changes to be made. Nll27 (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made changes to the lead section to make it sound less essay-like and to briefly address the contents of our article. I also made a few minor changes to the mother as a primary caregiver section that I felt needed to be edited to make it seem more informative rather than essay-like as well. Mjc112 (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a fourth paragraph to my article in Father as Primary Caregiver. I am still going to try to find a picture to go along with my article as wel as fine tuning any other items that may be incorrect. Any help with my section of the article and any other sections that need edited is always appreciated. Thank you for your time. 24.3.21.142 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like some work is being done, good. It's still far from finished but I'll draft up a full review in the next two days, hopefully. ResMar 22:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Proper review

Lead

• The lead is one big paragraph at the moment, and not very focused at that. It needs to be split into at least three, organized like this:
  • What is a single parent? How common are they? Some statistics.
  • Mother as primary caregiver, father as primary caregiver.
  • Single parent adoptions—what are they, how common are they, and what are the issues surrounding them? And what about divorces? How common are they and how much do they affect children?
• The sentence structure needs work, you have several sentences which are defining words. You should avoid this as much as possible, that's what we have links for! Try not to have sentances say "A <foo> is a <bar>."

Comments on this go here: done? not done? problems? avoid posting below the review. Thanks, ResMar 02:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

• I did some ce and whatnot, but this section is curt and to the point.

Debates

• The Institute for the Study of Civil Society reports Better saying "In <year>, the Institute...Society published report showing...
• ...that sole parents are a major cause of societal ills and are doing irreparable damage to their children This seems like a very strong statement, are you sure that is what they were originally saying?

Mother as primary caregiver

• What percentage of single parents are mothers? Conversely, the same statistic should be noted backwards in "Father as primary caregiver".
• In her work Marriages & Families Benokraitis... Who is Benokraitis?
• ...they outshine the father which tend to be more strict and distant... This feels like you are analyzing one text; is this text somehow more important or relevant then any others? Otherwise you should stick to general opinions.
• ...it's not common that a single mother will become actively involved with the childcare program anyway, reducing the possible guilt that a single mother may feel leaving the children with the care of others... I don't understand what you're saying here, I reworded as I thought it was but you may need to fix.
• Single mothers represent a dominant aspect of poverty levels in society Again, what? Again, reworded.

Father as primary caregiver

• In the United States today...avoid saying today; this changes based on when you are reading it. Would a study from 2005 be current in 2012? Say instead "as of ...". In addition, this sentence seems oddly placed; saying instead "There are <..> single parents as of <...>, and <percent> of those are single fathers.
• According to Single Parent Magazine: titles are italicized, and are you sure the title is capitalized this way? Especially "Magazine', which is generally left lowercase.
• A lot of first-person references, ae. "we", I've removed these...
• as the writer Armstrong Williams remarks In what work?
• Williams, the writer quoted above, goes on to say that he viewed his father as the driving force in his family and also someone who brought strength and compassion to his family. Who is this Williams guy and why should we care?
• I don't even know what the last two paragraphs are doing here, they openly state "although there is no significant research about this, I will now talk about single parents in general and smite this section..." It needs to be moved to its proper place.

Single parent adoption

• I changed the image caption to avoid BLP issues.
• for single parents usually have a higher education and a higher income in comparison to the country's average Wait, what? This, and what comes next, contradicts what was said earlier.
• The interviewer found that when asked about fears, a high proportion of children feared illness or injury to the parent. When asked about happiness, half of the children talked about outings with their single adoptive parent. Ok, but how does this compare to a child coming from a double-parent adoptive family?
• I'm still not seeing enough information outside of the United States; what is the general attitude elsewhere?
• Adoption agencies have strict rules about what kinds of people they allow, and are known to be "invasive, intrusive, and downright rude" in checking the adopter's background. Another strong statement, this sounds rather biased, and if you are going to keep it in there you're going to need to slap on another couple of references.
• I've removed adoption process, as this is missing the point and unneeded.
• illustrating that many adoptions by lesbians and gay men were arranged as single parent adoptions Once again, what are you saying?
• History of adoptions needs to be expanded more. First of all what caused the "change" from the 19th century to the 1960s? Second, you seem to drop off in the 1960s, has nothing happened in 50 years? If so, this should be noted as well (ae. "The situation has remained essentially unchanged for the past 50 years").

Divorce

• The statistics are well-placed, but those paragraphs are obscenely large. A quick skim and it still looks like a lot of tips. I'll go through it with a knife and I fear I will be cutting out the bulk of what is there...tomorrow.
• Child custody in reference to divorce refers to which parent is allowed to make important decisions about the children involved. Physical custody refers to which parent the child lives with. Avoid saying A is B and B is A, it's poor writing.
• Around the mid 1990s, there was a significant amount of single parents raising children, with 1.3 million single fathers and 7.6 million single fathers In the United States alone? If so it needs to be stated as such.
• A lot of statistics here that would be better off in the divorce statistic section.
• By the age of 30, men from divorced single parent households are twice as likely to have been in prison at some point for a serious crime. Link this to some other paragraph in this section, you can't have one sentence simply "stand alone". Also, it would be helpful to know what study told you this.

Tips

• I removed this whole section, Wikipedia is not Wikihow and we don't dispense helpful hints on such and such.

References

• Many of them need proper formatting, and this is one thing I won't fix "for you".
• Added onto that, several references are simply nonexistent and need to be created. What an ugly hodgepodge of bolded red text...

Further reading and external links

• Also needs formatting, use {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, and {{cite journal}} to standardize what you've got there. The references tool for it is right there on the editing bar. For an example of a well-ordered section of this type, see ae. this
• Same for external links, but there being fewer, this is simpler.

I will get to the remaining two sections tomorrow. ResMar 04:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time! We will look over all that needs to be done and make the changes. Mjc112 (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made addressed the suggested changes stated above for the mother as primary caregiver section, will try to get to the lead section later tonight or tomorrow. Mjc112 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

With regards to "I'm still not seeing enough information outside of the United States; what is the general attitude elsewhere", I did some quick search. Here is a source for Ireland and Netherlands (as of 1993); this seems to have changed for Netherlands at least (This may or may not be useful ([http://books.google.com/books?id=jBfvNGuXSqEC&q=%22single+parent+adoption%22+Europe&dq=%22single+parent+adoption%22+Europe&hl=en&ei=TxngTs2SFYjxggfZ_-WHBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CGkQ6AEwBw - snippet view only). Overall, there seems to be very little in book sources on that (I searched for UK, Australia, Canada, Germany and Europe, and found next to nothing). The section may however benefit from this academic article; even if it may not help with globalization, it could be useful for some other expansion. Overall, globalization would be nice, but I am not seeing many sources that could help - and if we have no sources, we can hardly expand the article. Wikipedia cannot summarize knowledge that's not in existence... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This [1] will help and should be used in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This might be a better way to get it [2]. Otherwise I could email it to someone. AIRcorn (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think a stronger case can be made for single parents in literature; the doctor from Washington Square (novel) and widow from Sense and Sensibility are two good examples, whose names escape me at the moment. ResMar 02:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you had gotten a chance to review the divorce section any further yet so that I could work on it more. Thanks. Nll27 (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

for single parents usually have a higher education and a higher income in comparison to the country's average Wait, what? This, and what comes next, contradicts what was said earlier.

Your response is? ResMar 22:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The interviewer found that when asked about fears, a high proportion of children feared illness or injury to the parent. When asked about happiness, half of the children talked about outings with their single adoptive parent. Ok, but how does this compare to a child coming from a double-parent adoptive family?

I'm finding it very difficult to find information on a worldwide view of adoption.

It's not always easy, but do what you can to avoiding Americana. ResMar 22:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Adoption agencies have strict rules about what kinds of people they allow, and are known to be "invasive, intrusive, and downright rude" in checking the adopter's background. Another strong statement, this sounds rather biased, and if you are going to keep it in there you're going to need to slap on another couple of references." There is already a reference on this sentence.

Yes, but see POINT; this is a very biased statement, and I will remove it if you do not find other sources that substantiate this probable opinion.

I'd probably keep the first one, and attribute the second one ("According to X, they have known to be"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"illustrating that many adoptions by lesbians and gay men were arranged as single parent adoptions Once again, what are you saying?" This sentence seems to be pretty clear and I don't understand how it is confusing?

Originally: children adopted by a single person were raised in pairs rather than alone, illustrating that many adoptions by lesbians and gay men were arranged as single parent adoptions, whether they were or not. How is point A (raised in pairs) relate to point B (adopted by gays and lesbians)? That is what is unclear. ResMar 22:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stboser (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You should respond to my comments in line with mine, it makes it easier. ResMar 22:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I will finish reviewing tomorrow or after-tomorrow, apologies for the delay. This GAN is starting to run over time - it has already passed the usual limit of two weeks. I would like to see all of my issues addressed by the end of next week for a pass/fail. Cheers, ResMar 22:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have finished the review and banged the remainder of the article roughly into shape. It remains now for you to address my specific comments. ResMar 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the divorce section. I have moved part of the statistics up to the statistics section as you suggested, and removed one because I couldn't find the exact study that researched it. Also, I made a couple other changes. However, in reference to the child custody versus physical custody, they seemed like two completely different ideas, and it seemed like they were presented that way in the source. But, if you think that it should just be removed or something let me know and I will make further adjustments. Thanks again. Nll27 (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You can rest easy, the divorce section looks fine, now. ResMar 02:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You all need to go through the second review and address my issues pronto people. ResMar 01:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll start looking at the other sections now. Nll27 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the one part in the debates section, but couldn't find the year for the other part. Also, I believe someone else fixed the lead section, references, and mother as primary caregiver. And, starting to look at other's sections, I looked up Single Parent Magazine, and it does appear to be capitalized this way. I added the article name from Armstrong Williams as well.Nll27 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Majority of my comments are still outstanding, and this has gone way past the norms for GAC already. Start editing - and not one or two here or there and then waiting for me to comment - but handling all the issues. My patience is wearing thin and this article has seen minimal activity for the past week. Saturday or failure. ResMar 00:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The course has ended. It will be a nice surprise if the students come back to editing this, I'd not keep your hopes up. I'd love to be proven wrong, of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well it's a damned shame if they were interested in this only because they were being graded on it. ResMar 02:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the educational system for you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

I am failing this GAN: for the reasons described by Piotrus above, despite outstanding comments this article will not see improvements in the near future. 'Tis a shame. ResMar 02:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Single Parent To Do List

I will be adding a section to the Single Parent Adoption section on which opportunities are available overseas. Stboser (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

xin con

I recommend for this section to be deleted because it has nothing to do with single parents.Spulliam91 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"refers to"

The lead has a problem with the use-mention distinction.

A single parent usually refers to a parent...

If you use the word refers, then the article is about the term single parent rather than the concept of a single parent (and so it should be in italics). But this article is really about the concept, not the term. So the lead, ideally, should start with

A single parent is a...

and avoid the word "refers". —Designate (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with language and comprehension

"The spike was caused by an increase in unmarried pregnancies, which 36% of all births by unmarried women, and to the increasing prevalence of divorces among couples. "

The proportion of children living in single parent households has had a steady and relentless increase since 1960 or so. This is not a "spike" in 2000, it is a long term trend. A "spike" exists when some measured quantity jumps abruptly, not when it creeps upwards over a 50 year period.Eregli bob (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"The results of the 2010 United States Census showed that 27% of children live with one parent, consistent with the emerging trend noted in 2000."

This trend was demonstrably "emerging" in 1970. Its not an "emerging" trend any more, it is an established trend. If you didn't "note" this trend until 2000, you weren't paying attention !. I don't know if this is some kind of "blame Clinton" POV or just sloppy language. Eregli bob (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Since 2001, 31% of babies born in Australia have been born to unmarried mothers."

This statistic, if true, has nothing to do with single-parent households. There is a long-standing increase in most developed countries in the proportion of people who are in long-standing "de facto" relationships who are not religiously or civilly married, and this trend is somewhat more advanced in Australia than the USA. It is not a valid demographic conclusion to state that, since 31% of babies are born to unmarried mothers, that they are therefore living in single-parent households.Eregli bob (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not clearly nothing to do with single-parent households. Probably partly depends on what mean by single-parent (the article is not clear on the single part, in fact single was hardly mentioned in the beginning of the lead until I just put something in). I expect some might consider not married as "single" (no matter how many partners of whatever sex they were living with).

How stable are such non-marital relationships? Are they actually long standing? How long? (Same questions one would ask of trends in marriage/divorce, just may be harder to pin down since don't have such official beginning/ending points.) Fragile families is term I have seen used to refer to such couples in some literature (e.g. Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study).

Of course the whole unmarried couples vs single parent thing is probably worth a mention in the article. Zodon (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Also worth noting that Unmarried mother redirects to this article. So this article is de facto about unmarried mothers (whether one considers them "single" or not).

Currently unmarried parent, unmarried father and fragile family do not exist. Zodon (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence in the article says "A single parent is a parent, not living without a spouse or partner..." Not living without is the same thing as living with, in which case the parent is not single at all.24.115.66.190 (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

what about age stats?!

It makes a lot of sense then that single mothers are more likely to be young and unmarried — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.223.26 (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Single parents in media

I suggest this section be removed. It's unencyclopedic trivia. If we are to have a section called "Single parents in media", it should actually talk about single parents in media (how they are portrayed, globally and throughout history, and what cultural impact this has had, etc.). Simply listing character names is for Wikia or TVTropes, not Wikipedia. —Designate (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not neutral

The article in many section refers to the USA only, that is just one among many English-speaking countries in the World. Not only that, English being an international language, many people from non-English-speaking countries refer to the Wikipedia in English because it is generally more complete. It is true that the USA are one of the countries with the top divorce rate in the world (I won't say more about my non-neutral opinions about the USA), but still writing about an universal problem like single parenting with reference to one country only is, in my opinion, lack of neutrality. --Abacos (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

References

This article contains multiple spurious citations. Two I have deleted. The cited articles have no mention at all of the content mentioned under reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.99.186 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Voluntary single parent

Should some mention be made of the growing "trend" (if that's the right word) where a mother raises a child voluntarily in the absence of the father, sometimes even certifying the birth with "father unknown"? Tony Holkham (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Solo Parent - DONE

The term "Solo parent" seems synonymous with "single parent". Solo parent article also seems to contain much opinion about use of the term. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

331dot makes statements without providing facts. She uses a word "seems" which is another word for "deceives". Instead of providing specific evidence of what she says is opinion instead of fact, she "seems" to dislike facts and calls facts as opinions. So much more could be said about 'solo parent' and ESPECIALLY WHY they have taken control as solo parents. Everything on the page is factual and reasonable and is the most accurate title Solo Parent. Single Parent is propaganda of making labels that make evil things "seem" to be good (read the book - The Marketing of Evil) - just like 'choice' is the appealing label to make murder of a child "seem" good, 'best interest' for profits of court workers and "gay" for homosexual. It's still homosexual in other languages, but Americans must go into shock when they hear this word which has been used for thousands of years and still today. The world needs facts, not DECEPTIVE LABELS that market evil things to "seem" to be good.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Humane4kids (talk • contribs) 9:47 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

This is not a forum to promote the social agenda you seem to have; it is also irrelevant to the issue of the best way to present the information to readers, which is on one page. The terms are synonomous. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Support merge here; or rather redirect - nothing to merge, really; this seems like a poorly referenced content fork. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete and redirect, the only thing that seems worth keeping is that in the Philippines the term Solo Parent is more common. Solo Parent barely even makes an assertion of notability. Vectro (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The term is slightly different from single parent, I think. And following the merge, it was only mentioned once, in the lead, without explanation or citation, so I removed it altogether. Melty girl 18:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Addition to Single Parent Page

I would like to add a section to this page discussing the unique economic impact of single parent households. Being a single parent not only changes the economic dynamic of that household, but also has broader implications for the economy at large. In this page I would like to highlight the unique nature of single-income, single parent households on society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarczak (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Worldwide View tag

I feel that we should edit the title of the single parent page to include something about being specific to the United States. Sure, we could include additional areas to the page but the majority of it is based off of things from the United States. I think that social norms, expectations, and statistics regarding parenting, parenthood, and especially single parents vary a lot by country. This would make it extremely important to make it specific and get the alert removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jseidlitz (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A non-Wikipedia-style reference

In the third pargraph, there is this sentence, which probably is meant to be a reference
"(National Women's Law Center, Poverty & Income Among Women & Families, 2000-2013)"
Should it be removed or made into a proper reference?--Adûnâi (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Single Parents (TV series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

edits

The children's education section is very small. I found information on how children's cognitive abilities are affected by only having a mother in the household. I believe that this information would expand this section of the article to explain actual case studies and statistics on children's cognitive abilities without a father. I also believe that additional, specific information about fatherless (single-mother) households would be beneficial to this page. There is specific, extra information about single mothers; however, a lacking amount of extra information about fathers. Lastly, most of the page is about the United States. There is a section about Australian mothers; therefore, if more countries are added it would expand the spectrum of cultures being identified. There is data on Norway single-mothers.