Talk:Social work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social work article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject on Social Work This article is supported by the Social Work WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Social Work and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Social work, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale
Social work was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 26, 2008


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] I would like to make this article a GA nominee

What do other editors think? I would like to make this a GA nominee and get some feedback on how it can be improved. Ursasapien (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
    Resolved. All dates put in correct format. Ursasapien (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • No applicable infobox exist, that I could find. If one can be located, its addition to the article would be appreciated.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
    Resolved. All dates put in correct format. Ursasapien (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • arguably
      Resolved. "Arguably the earliest" deleted. Ursasapien (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed part of this. I will come back and check those items off. Ursasapien (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have completed the obvious improvements. The article may benefit from a good copyedit. Ursasapien (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

The article is OK, but doesn't meet GA criteria yet. I have put the GA nomination on hold for one week to give you time to address the issues. Some of the issues I've highlighted below are quite complex, so I'm not sure you'll meet the deadline, but feel free to prove me wrong!

I noticed that you have struggled with addressing bias towards Europe and America. The article still seems biased to me, in that there's no coverage of other countries. An individual account of every country is unnecessary, but it would be beneficial to include something about the development and practice of social work in other continents, e.g. Asia, Africa, South America. For example, "in Europe, this happened at this time, and in northern Africa this happened".

I can also see that many pieces of information have been added by different people. That's the point of Wikipedia, but it's not supposed to be noticeable when reading an article. Someone needs to go through the whole article and make sure it flows well and is written in the same style. I didn't notice any switching from American to British English, so good work there.

An infobox would also be a nice touch, perhaps WP:Social Work should develop one for social work-related topics? This doesn't need to be done for GA status, but it's something to consider for the future.

[edit] Lead

The lead needs rewriting, because it is currently serving as a definition of social work, not a summary of the article. The first sentence should be a short definition of social work, not a fragment about breaking a definition down into two parts. I know it's a difficult subject to define, but it needs to be done in a couple of quick sentences. The lead should then move into summarising the sections of the article - it doesn't mention the origins, qualifications, etc. The lead shouldn't mention anything not explained elsewhere within the article. Refer to WP:LEAD for more info. You could create another section addressing the definition, or integrate it into other relevant sections.

[edit] Origins

  • This section needs more internal links and more references. You also need to clarify which country or area you are referring to, because it's vague at times.
  • "Social work, as a profession or pursuit, has a relatively modern origin. However, the concept of working to correct social ills with a comprehensive approach is an age-old idea." - what does "relatively modern" mean? 20th century? "Age-old idea" - does that mean since the beginning of human existence? Were people 200,000 years ago concerned with correcting social ills? It's vague.
  • "the practice of providing for the poor has roots in all major world religions" - do you have a citation for that? What is considered a "major" world religion?
  • Second paragraph we get a definition of "relatively modern" - 19th century. What is it relative to? Why don't you just say it became a profession in the 19th century? Be as clear as possible.
  • "Charity in Europe was considered to be a responsibility and a sign of one’s piety" - considered by whom? The church? Where did this idea come from?
  • "This charity was, generally, in the form of direct relief (i.e. money, food, etc.)" - please excuse my ignorance, but is this in comparison to indirect relief, because I don't know what that is? "i.e." and "etc" aren't very professional - prefer "such as money and food".
  • "there was also a great migration to urban areas." - where? Are we just talking about Britain? You need to clarify this, because the way it's currently written, it could be interpreted to referring to the whole Western world, if not the whole world.
  • "(poverty, prostitution, disease, etc.)" - remove brackets, "etc.", rewrite.
  • "These “friendly visitors”" - were they referred to at the time as "friendly visitors" (and who by?), or is that a writer's sarcasm? Unclear.
  • "A new philosophy of "scientific charity" which stated charity should be "secular, rational and empirical as opposed to sectarian, sentimental, and dogmatic." (James Leiby)[3]" - who's James Leiby? Is he the philosopher behind scientific charity? It's unclear. Also not sure why there's no full-stop (or period) before the reference.
  • "provide aid for social ills popped up, that would become known as the settlement movement" - "popped up" is unprofessional, sentence needs rewriting.
  • "Workers in the settlement movement immersed themselves in the culture of those they were helping." - what does this mean? Did they live in poverty?
  • "In America, this led to a fundamental question – is social work a profession?" - what led to this fundamental question? The settlement movement? Workers immersing themselves in the culture of those they were helping?
  • "immersion into the problem, blurring the lines of practitioner and client." - I don't understand this.
  • "Schools of social work and formalized processes began to spring up" - "spring up" is too informal. Perhaps "were founded".
  • "He contended that it was not" - do not need to bold "was not".
  • "The International Federation of Social Workers states, of social work today..." - what does this have to do with the origins of social work? Quotes shouldn't be in italics and this one, because it's long, should be in blockquote tags. Refer to WP:MOSQUOTE.
  • Picure of "The interior of Marshall's flax-mill" is unrelated to social work, so is unnecessary.

[edit] Qualifications

  • Good idea to split this into a separate article so you could include more world-wide information. I have fixed the headings in the sub-article, but I don't know why New Zealand has a section if it's empty? The sub-article also needs much more internal linking and a more informative lead.
  • "Social Workers" and "Social Work" do not need to be capitalised (unless you're referring to a Bachelor of Social Work). Needs more internal links (e.g. licence, United States, lay practitioners, mental health, United Kingdom).
  • Suggest you fix the citation needed tag... And add more citations to this section.
  • "Lay practitioners, often referred to as Social Services Assistants or Care Workers, are unqualified and unregistered social workers. They are not professionally registered and often do not hold any formal social work qualification." - why do you say twice that they're unqualified and unregistered? Why are you mentioning lay practitioners? To distinguish them from social workers? You also don't need to capitalise "Social Services Assistants" or "Care Workers".
  • "Approved Social Worker." - remove bold and capital letters. This paragraph and the one above about lay practitioners are too short.
  • "In a number of countries and jurisdictions, registration or licensure of people working as social workers is required and there are mandated qualifications" - isn't this more important than everything that comes before it? It's an overarching statement relevant to everything else.
  • "The success of these professional bodies' effort to establish these requirements is demonstrated in the fact that these same requirements are recognized by many employers as necessary for employment" - rewrite sentence, too long and complicated.

[edit] Role of the professional

  • Sub-article definitely needs a clean up and to be expanded to more regions. Quotation needs a reference.
  • Section needs many more internal links.
  • "refusing to recreate unequal social structures." - unclear sentence, what are you trying to say?
  • "The main tasks of professional social workers can include a variety of services such as case management (linking clients with agencies and programs that will meet their psychosocial needs), medical social work, counseling (psychotherapy), human services management, social welfare policy analysis, community organizing, advocacy, teaching (in schools of social work), and social science research." - too long, and terms are undefined.
  • "Social Workers" - "Workers" doesn't need to be capitalised.
  • "Some of these areas have been the subject of controversy as to whether they are properly part of social work's mission.[10]" - reference does not say this.
  • "A variety of settings employ social workers" - shouldn't this have been covered above with "Professional social workers work in a variety of settings"?

[edit] Professional associations

  • Does not explain why there are professional associations or what they do. Provide an overview.

[edit] Knowledge building

  • This section should be included earlier and repeats info from the Origins section. Suggest you move this to after the Origins section, title it something about social work today, and remove repetition. I don't actually know what the point of this section currently is - to explain researching? It's unclear and lacks focus (same for sub-article). Perhaps it should be about current ideas and definitions of social work.
  • This entire section has no internal links, and only one citation. Reads like original research.
  • The text is quite difficult to read compared to the other sections, e.g. "This debate pits positivism against post-positivism in the pursuit of achieving respect as a profession", "One reason for the practice-research gap is that practitioners deal with situations that are unique and idiosyncratic, while research deals with regularities and aggregates." This is an encyclopedia aimed at people of all knowledge levels, not a thesis, so simplify the language. Refer to WP:JARGON.

[edit] Types of professional intervention

  • The three levels should be properly defined and explained, not just listed.
  • "Clinical or direct practice" and "Community practice" aren't defined - how do they relate to the three levels? What do the headings mean? What are the lists for? Why are these things listed?
  • The bullet points switch capitalisation, e.g. "Brief therapies", "Behavior Therapy". Standardise.
  • The "Community practice" sub-article refers solely to the US - is it a US term? Is that whole bulleted list US-specific?

[edit] Fields of professional practice (direct and community levels and academic level)

  • Doesn't this belong in "Role of the professional"?
  • "direct and community levels and academic level" - how can I tell which level each refers to?

[edit] See also

  • This should only include articles that have not been linked to within the text. For example, you have already linked to Adoption and Foster Care. Are all of these topics actually linked to social work (e.g. Nonviolent communication)?

[edit] References

  • There aren't many references here, considering the size of the article and its subject matter.
  • The references should all be formatted the same. They shouldn't be in uppercase, don't know why one has "eg." in front of it.
  • One of the links isn't working, refer to the link checker.

[edit] External links

  • Quite a lot of links here! Are any more suitable as references? Suggest you re-evaluate all the links - for example, The Exchange website seems largely unrelated to social work.
  • "International federation of social workers", "Australian Association of Social Workers" - don't need to link to these, because you link to the organisations' articles within the text.
  • "Open Access and Non-Governemntal" - typo in "governmental".

[edit] How the article currently compares to GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Good work so far, but there's still a way to go. It's a complex topic with a lot of areas to cover, but it's a very important topic. I wish you best of luck in improving the article further to meet criteria, and hope I've been constructive and helpful towards you meeting that aim. :) Somno (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Your comments certainly have been constructive and helpful. Sometimes, an editor can be to close to the subject of an article to get proper perspective. I agree that this may be too much to do in a week, but I am willing to try. As far as bias, we are truly at a disadvantage. The wikiproject has one active American (me), some representation from India, the U.K., and Australia, but no one from Asia or Africa. I am not sure how to get better information from these regions, aside from searching the net. As I understand it, social work began in Britain and the U.S. at virtually the same time and was exported throughout the rest of the world. Anyway, I think this is an important topic that has languished on Wikipedia for far too long. Perhaps I will be able to talk some of my old university professors into joining the cause. Would you consider giving a few more days if we are making good progress and can conceivably finish in ten days or so? Thanks again. Ursasapien (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I could provide an outsider perspective. :) I think your best option will be to search the net or literature for info about the other countries. It can just be brief, and hopefully over time editors familiar with social work in those countries will expand the info, and eventually it will all balance out! A few more days will be fine; seven days is a general guideline but not a strict rule. If I can see editors are working on addressing issues, then no worries. Good luck! Somno (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final review after on hold period

The article has come a long way, so great job! Unfortunately, I can't pass it as a good article - there are sections without any references (Role of the professional, Types of professional intervention) and the article overall still needs more sources and internal links. With a little more work, it'll be a well-deserved GA. I hope to see it renominated soon and good luck further improving the article. One more suggestion - the article sometimes seems to praise social workers a bit much. I'm not doubting that they deserve it, just watch that you keep the point of view neutral. Also, for your info, I have added the article to Unreferenced GA task force nominations. Regards, Somno (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

Hi, just wanted to explain the citation needed tags that I've added - I added them to statements that seemed to be original research (not saying that they are OR, just that they seemed that they might be :). I think you also need to clarify reference 10 - I took a look at the website referenced and could not immediately find the info that was being referenced. Hope it helps. Somno (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for your help. Ursasapien (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Despite the edits made since this article’s Good Article nomination, there are still several changes that must be made before it is nominated again to provide a full and accurate portrayal of the field of social work.~`

Areas of Bias and Stereotype

• The article’s bias toward Western nations must be addressed, yet it is difficult to maintain a global scope of a practice that varies so widely world-wide. Perhaps this could be addressed by modeling encyclopedia Britannica’s article describing “Social Services.” Although Britannica’s explanation is predominantly Western, the social service programs of various nations, including section on developing countries, are explained under individual sub-headings (Pinkler, 2008). From there, the qualifications and practices of social work in various areas of the world could be detailed.

• The introductory paragraph states that social work occurs “especially among the poor and sick.” Although this work often occurs with poor and sick populations, this statement promotes a stereotype, as social work extends far beyond these populations.

• As the section describing the origins of social work is currently written, it seems as though the field made a gentle progression through time with very little conflict, when in fact the opposite is true. A major principle of social work is to improve upon existing conditions, yet none of the early approaches to social work are portrayed to have had any faults; this is a glorified (and thus, biased) representation of the field. It should be illustrated that many approaches were not entirely successful, thus creating the need for advancement. For example, it is not noted that what some consider the first form of social workers in the U.S., the Friendly Visitors, were not well received by their poor clientele. Due to assumed superiority and class difference, effective professional and personal relationships were unable to develop (Gettleman, 1963). Perhaps if a link were provided to a page defining Friendly Visitors this issue would be abated. Additionally, the mental asylums of the 1800’s are said to have “assist[ed] in taking care of the mentally ill.” Although there was a trend toward indoor relief during this period, the author fails to mention that conditions in these asylums were later deemed unlivable, and to say asylums were “taking care” of anyone is a far stretch. The article might also mention more important figures in the history of social work such as Dorothea Dix, who advocated reform of these conditions (Trattner, 1999, 65-57).

Oversights:

• The origins section should also be expanded to include the advancements made in the field of social work within the past 100 years. Within the past century the field has become heavily intertwined with policy and its reform, particularly in the United States. Many critical advancements aided by social work professionals were achieved at this time, including civil rights, social security, unemployment insurance, disability pay, worker’s compensation, Medicaid, Medicare, child abuse prevention, the gradual destigmatization of treatment for mental illness and substance abuse (NASW, 2008). These advancements should certainly be mentioned as they are heavily utilized in contemporary interventions.

• Professional associations are described as resources “provid[ing] advocacy, ethical guidance, and other forms of support for their members and social workers in general.” The concept of ethical guidance could be further explained to clarify the duties of a social worker. As illustrated by the archive of this article’s discussion, social workers are often misrepresented, and perhaps providing a brief overview of some of the ethics they must consider could promote a more accurate understanding of the work. The International Federation of Social Worker’s (IFSW) Statement of Principles identifies a standard of conduct which should be maintained by social worker’s world-wide. Including commitment to competence, recognition of boundaries, compassion, and confidentiality (IFSW, 2005).

• The brief note regarding technology at the end of the contemporary professional development section should be either clarified or removed entirely. “Informatics revolution” should be defined, linked to a sub-page, or removed. Also, do social workers truly have a suspicion of technology? This wording seems to imply something that is not necessarily true. Otherwise, there should be some clarification as to exactly how technology can be used to empower clients, because this is unclear.

Other Corrections:

• Although it is motioned that “providing for the poor has its roots in all major world religions,” the cited source does not verify this fact.

• The Iowa School Social Workers Association is mentioned while professional associations of no other states are included. This may leave the reader questioning if Iowa is the only state with an organization for social workers, which it is not.

Works Cited:

Gettelman, Marvin E. (1963). Charity and Social Classes in the United States. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 22(3), 417-426. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3485008.

International Federation of Social Workers. (2005). “Ethics in Social Work: Statement of Principles.” Accessed May 27, 2008 from http://www.ifsw.org/en/p38000324.html.

Pinkler, Robert A. (Ed.) Social service. (2008). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109 552.

Trattner, W.I., (1999). From Poor Law to Welfare State. New York: The Free Press.

The National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Social Work History. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/features/general/history.asp. 129.10.244.188 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)