Talk:Children's Act, 2005

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: South Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as Low-importance). This article was created or improved during the "African 10,000 Challenge", which started in 1 September 2016 and is still continuing. You can help! This page was expanded or created as part of The Africa Destubathon, October/November 2016. South Africa: PSP SA This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Wikipedia Primary School project.

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before October 31, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! --Anthere (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. As anticipated, some weeks ago Stefano Marmorato agreed to review this article within the scope of the project linked above. You can find his notes in the PDF I just uploaded to Commons. We'd like to thank Stefano Marmorato for his work and for his helpful notes. We invite everybody to feel free to reuse the review to improve the article and/or to comment it here. Best, Anthere (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To facilitate the editing process, I copied Stefano Marmorato notes below.

Is the summary of the article a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic? How do you think the summary could be improved? Which meaningful data are missing? Is there something that you find too much detailed for a general overview of the topic?

The very first paragraph is a good summary of what a good article could be. The problem is that there is no article, actually, beyond paragraph 2! And paragraph 2 specifically is dedicated to a detail (the distribution of the provisions between the first part of the Act and its later integration) which does not add to knowledge nor inspires further reading or research.
So what is missing is not a part of the Summary, but the very article.

Is the article properly presenting the topic for a general public? Does the article provide a complete and easy-to-navigate structure? Which paragraph would you add, unify or split into different parts? Please provide a list of suggestions. Is the article well written and understandable at a high school level?

What is presented is properly presented, but as mentioned above it is way too scanty to be useful. It’s a 2-paragraph general explanation of the Act and of its contents (just by titles, not in its philosophy/approach/enforcement tools and effectiveness).

Is the article comprehensive of major facts related to the topic? Is the article adequately placing the subject in context? What does it miss? Please provide a list of topics you think should be included in the article (suggestions must be related to bibliography). Do you find that some arguments are not meaningful or representative of the topic for a general public. What should be deleted? Please explain why.

What is missing is a general description of emphasis given to certain rights of children which are commonly violated, or were not such in previous legislation altogether, which tools for detection and correction are suggested or introduced, which State and other public organs are given responsibility for each role in the compliance with the Act’s provisions (e.g. role of Police, of Municipalities, of Department of Social Welfare, etc.). We cannot know whether it’s just homage to UN culture of hypocritical general statements and awareness campaigns without proper enforcement tools or a set of provisions with a claw or with a general intent of influencing other legislation, with which significant differences with the past laws and practices. Since the country has improved Government’s and civil society’s resources, space of manoeuvre (having a say inside family’s issues) and legitimacy over the last 2 decades, it would have been inspiring for others knowing better this piece of legislation, and connecting it to other acts if possible.
It could be also related to legislation meant to introduce rights and protective action for women and in general the fight against abuse, clearly recognised in its patterns in South Africa and tackled with more commitment, legal and financial resources than in most of other countries in Africa and probably around the world.

Is the article neutral (it presents general and acknowledged views fairly and without bias)? Is the article representative of the international dimension and consolidated research about the topic? If applicable, does the article feature examples from all over the world (no localisms)? Please draft a list of what is missing with related references.

The article is about an Act of South Africa and has no strict duty to deal with the international dimension, however this is completely absent and it does not allow for comparison and appreciation of the possible innovative or breakthrough elements of the Act itself.
I think it would be useful to compare the main provisions or stated intentions, objectives, suggestions for further legislation or executive’s regulations, in countries which are specifically interesting for South Africa: the BRIC’s emerging economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China), Southern Africa’s neighbours or economic power Nigeria, or the Northern countries (pre- and post-so-called-Arab Spring), but also with institutional contexts generally considered advanced in terms of child’s rights protection (Europe, Canada, the USA).

Is the list of publications comprehensive and updated? Does it list the fundamental monographs and papers? Please provide primary/generic and secondary/original resources which need to be included and suggest the list of publications which should be removed.

I am sorry: I am not a specialist in this matter to suggest reviews of compared legislation or of practical provisions in South Africa and other countries. However, just the listing of the main provisions of the very Children’s Act, as well as of similar Acts in the countries I mentioned above, I mean the laws’ contents, would be a great improvement of the article.