Talk:Workfare in the United Kingdom

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mergers edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone have a current list of work programme 'primes'? So many of these companies seem to be merging I am struggling to work out who is who and who currently has the contracts for each region. DanielJCooper (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

NPOV Check edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I've never done this before so I apologise if I'm not doing this right, but this article seems to me to be quite weak by Wikipedia's NPOV standards. On 'indicate the relative prominence of opposing views', the 'Support' section is rather paltry compared to the large 'Criticism' and 'Controversies' sections (I can't find any opinion polling on the subject, which I guess would be welcome, but I defy anyone to claim that the relative prominence of views in support of this policy is reflected in this article). What matter is given in support of the policy seems to be sailing close to the wind on 'stating facts as opinion', and indeed the article in general seems to use a sixth-form-essayish 'X says, Y says' structure which doesn't read like Wikipedia (though I don't know what policy that violates if any). I don't want to start a riot or anything, but I hope I can make a friendly suggestion that a more experienced Wikipedian take a look? Dan Hartas (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic