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

Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

I'd like to talk with the editor who tagged this article as reading like an essay. What about the article suggests it is a 'personal reflection' rather than note-worthy information that can be verified by external sources? It is neutral in tone, summarizing what Communities That Care is, and referencing research that has been done on the topic. The fact that there are few links to other articles in Wikipedia should not be a reflection of its noteworthiness. This article discusses one of many topics in the field of prevention science, which unfortunatly is not well represented on Wikipedia. Preventionbetterthancure ( talk) 22:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The essay and orphan templates are independent of each other. If you click on the "history" tab at the top of the article, you can see which editor made each edit -- in this case, the "essay" tag was added by Bearcat ( talk · contribs), so you might try leaving a note on his/her talk page. HTH -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This article has a lot of useful background information that leads to factual information with credible sources. There are so many references that support this article, and many of them are scientific journals, research articles, published work, and many others that provide the data and graphic images. Although the article is a bit lengthy, I appreciate that there is thorough information and explanation however because it is so detailed. However, I think that it could be shortened a bit or some sections could be taken out such as the "Online CTC Materials" section is not necessary to have there, and that if it was eliminated then the article would still be just as valuable with all the information it already contains. Perhaps another section such as "Tested and Effective Programs" could have been eliminated because it is just a few sentences that do not seem vital to the overall article. However, I thought that the neutrality of it all was wonderful because there was no bias and it was factual information that could be used. The structure overall was carefully planned out and easy to read along and relate to the graphs that were incorporated. -- Oyulayeva ( talk) 23:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communities That Care. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423073246/https://www.preventionplatform.samhsa.gov/ to http://www.preventionplatform.samhsa.gov/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991128013208/http://www.childtrends.org/index.cfm to http://www.childtrends.org/index.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply