Talk:Child Support Agency

I believe that this current article is biased against the Child Support agency and does not leave the impression of a balanced view.

Overhaul

I agree with the above that the article is unbalanced, many of the claims are unsupported and use "weasal words". It's also factually incorrect in places, e.g. criteria when the CSA can get involved. I think it needs a complete overhaul. I'm going to try and do some of it, as the csa website appears to be easy to navigate to find the information required. Plus, there are several bbc articles on the CSA which give background reading and other points to include. MartinRe 13:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great now. I made 2 very minor changes, but other then that it seems like a complete and well-cited article. ---J.Smith 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I've just completed a first draft of a rewrite. Have tried to expand the article quite a bit, including lots of citations. Comments welome. Even better someone else can continue - full articles are quite hard work! MartinRe 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reading, can see some things that need correcting/adding (not including typos)

calculations %63 under old rules is running total, should be better phrased.
systems needs more info and references.
critism - surely there are positive articles out there too?
stats are confusing, would like to have X cases per yer figure, but can't figure out which figures in the report that is.
link to ICE in external links.

And of course, written in more flowing prose, which isn't my strongest suit! MartinRe 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errors section

For the year April 2004 – May 2005, Department for Work and Pensions statistics show an accuracy rate of 75% (new scheme) and 78% (old scheme), a drop from the previous years' 82% and 86%. Interim reports for the current year (April 2005 – May 2006), show an improvement to 83% and 84%, respectively.

That's what it looks like now (in line citation removed). Being someone who doesnt know anything more about the CSA then what I have just read, can you give more information about what an error is? Is it something as simple as a typo in the mail-address or something more-major? ---J.Smith 00:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]