Talk:Single parent/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)