Talk:Sure Start

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Use of words?

Is "transmogrified" a suitably encycopidic choice of words? It seems excessive to me. --81.107.202.80 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now (a) logged in and (b) changed it anyway. I've aimed for greater readability and have reduced redundant words in places. While I was at it I also added a quote and some more references and corrected a foolish error that I had made some time ago. --Lord Matt 15:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So out-of-date

This needs serious re-writing. There has been no Dept for Children etc for 10 months. The page need some figures for funding before/during/after so-called cuts.

Not up to wikipedia standards (IMO) Cannonmc (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a citation where one was needed. Intend to come back and update this page soon - have run out of time today. Doctor Girl (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have done another small bit of updating. I think I could improve the lead section, but haven't done a lead section yet so I'm working on getting my head around the guidelines first. Doctor Girl (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a whole bunch of editing on this page today, including rewriting the lead section, editing a couple of the other sections, and sorting out the external links so they actually work. This is the most editing I've done on any page since beginning to work on Wikipedia, and I'm exhausted! There's still more work to do on the page but I'm brain-dead. Hope what I've done is OK but if not please let me know how I could do it better. Doctor Girl (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is too ready to assume benefits were significant and well proven. The 2012 report makes it clear they were very serious methodoiogical weakness in the evaluation especially the lack of a randomised control group. That report talks of 'modest' benefits, language not reflected here. In terms of the original aims, no benefit at all in educational attainment has been demonstrated, a pretty fundamental issue surely in terms of life chances. A more objective view is needed. Unraed (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)unraed[reply]

POV language issues?

In February 2020, the reviewed report has shown that 1300 centres have been closed during the last 10 years, meaning more than one in three Sure Start centres were axed under the Tories, the brutal cuts have seen 1,292 of the vital family centres shut since 2010, ministers admit. At their peak in 2009/10, there were 3,600 centres. The austerity slashed numbers by up to 85 per cent in some areas. In Staffs, 46 of 54 centres shut, and Oxfordshire lost 37 of its 45.

The above reads to me more like a newspaper columnist than a neutral encyclopedia. "Brutal cuts", "ministers admit" etc. 86.150.145.250 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]