Talk:Parent management training/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating this again. It looks like this article has improved significantly, so I'll leave some comments ASAP. JAGUAR 13:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I worked quite a bit on this article after it was edited by students, trying to bring student work in to better compliance with Wikipedia standards, but it was never up to GA standard and should not have been submitted. I see some deterioration since the GA failed ... some correctly cited critical text has been removed, and some undue text has been added to the lead claiming 80% efficacy since the failed GA, while the major copyedit needed has not been done.. I'd suggest reverting back to the failed GA version, and redoing from there. Sorry I am not around to help, but this article was never, and is not now, at GA standard. It's even a bit POV now, with critical text deleted and undue claims of efficacy in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to review the article again over two months and I'll be happy to oblige. I haven't had a full look at it yet, but when I start the review I'll do it from a reader's perspective at first and then after that I think I'll pry deeper into the sources. But with that being said, I'm not well versed on this subject and personally I would hate to fail the same article twice... JAGUAR 20:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unwilling to fail a faulty article twice, then you should not have picked up the GA review; please leave it to someone who understands sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 80% efficacy claim (which I did not add, BTW) is un-sourced, but it's arguably not undue. One source is Kazdin's book "Kazdin Method": "Our research shows that about 80 percent of even the most serious cases of child conduct disorder respond well to my method,..."http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/NewYearNewYou/story?id=4127767&page=1&singlePage=true.

The Kazdin Method is a version of PMT.Tadamsmar (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an independent, third-party source. I have every recent secondary review on the topic, and no such claim can be sourced. The article is POV, and all of the faulty edits since the last GA review should be reverted.

Additionally, the correct red links to notable concepts were removed at the suggestion of the last GA review. Please review WP:RED; all of those links were to topics that met notability and they should not have been removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

"Parent management training (PMT)," - no need for comma here
- - Introduced in the same POV edit that should be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (OOD) and Conduct Disorder (CD)" - 'disorder' shouldn't be capitalised (I'm using their articles as barometers)
- - Introduced in the same POV edit that should be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"With an almost 80% success rate in significantly decreasing these behaviors the program aims to teach parents" - syntax issue (missing comma). Would read better as With an almost 80% success rate in significantly decreasing these behaviors, the program aims to teach parents. By the way, are they disorders or behaviours?
- - Not based no an independent, third-party source; biased, POV, should be reverted. No independent secondary recent review makes such a claim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" focuses on parents learning to provide positive reinforcement, such as praise and rewards, for children's appropriate behaviors while setting proper limits" - I found this confusing, are the praise and rewards related to the end of the sentence here?
Per WP:LEADCITE, I would recommend cutting down on a few citations in the lead that aren't essential or can be moved elsewhere
- This is a faulty interpretation of LEADCITE; there is nothing cited in the lead that should not be cited. The 80% claim, of course, should be cited and is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Technique section could do with some more Wiki-links. "Substance abuse" and certain mental health issues could be linked
"all contribute to early-onset conduct problems; The cost of PMT is "modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems"" - "the" shouldn't be capitalised if it is next to a semi-colon. Also, where did the quote come from? If it came from an author or scholar, mention them!
"Negative parenting practices and negative child behavior" - no need for duplicate negative
"For example, if a child throws a temper tantrum to avoid doing a chore" - I still think "chore" sounds informal, maybe something like "command"?
" the parent may respond by yelling that the child must do it" - again, yelling sounds informal and unencyclopaedic
"as well as concrete rewards (such as stickers or points towards a larger reward as part of an incentive system created collaboratively with the child)" - this would work without the brackets
"In addition to positive reinforcement and limit setting in the home" - is this trying to say that PMT should not be limited to domestic use?
- - The prose problems in this article have been correctly identified. It is not at GA standard and never has been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last sentence on the technique section "PMT is underutilized and training for therapists and other providers..." would be better of merged with another paragraph
"The theory behind PMT has been "repeatedly validated"" - by who?
"according to Menting et al (2013)" - what is this? This wouldn't make sense to the average reader
- - I do not understand why you do not understand this; it is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"which according to the authors of a Cochrane review" - can Cochrane be linked if possible?
- - sure should be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"or parents my not be able to stay engaged" - may
"Although the bulk of the research on PMT examines its impact on disruptive behavior, it has also been studied as an intervention for other conditions" - this sounds a lot like original research
- - This sounds like the reviewer has not read the article, specifically the section on other conditions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A 2009 review of long-term outcomes in children with Tourette syndrome (TS) said that, in those children with TS who have other comorbid conditions" - might read better as A 2009 review of long-term outcomes in children with Tourette syndrome (TS) said that, those who suffer with comorbid conditions?
- - Saying that someone "suffers" from a condition is not only POV-- it is against WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In summary; multiple problems with this review, but no doubt this article never was at GA standard. It was a student-edited article I attempted to bring into compliance with policy, but never to bring to GA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

There are still some prose and organisational issues that prevents this article from meeting the GA criteria. I haven't yet done a full spotcheck on the sources, but I can tell that there is potential in this article as it does appear to be thoroughly researched. I'll have to think about this... JAGUAR 17:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar, it's been three weeks since you put this on hold. Tadamsmar's only edits since then have been to make the August 24 comment above. Given that no edits have been made to the article to address the issues you enumerated above, I think it's time to close the review. I can understand your reluctance to fail a nomination twice running, but without active nominator participation, you aren't left with much choice. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, both SandyGeorgia and Tadamsmar appear inactive and haven't yet attended to the review, no doubt with real life obligations? I really didn't want to do this, but I'll have to close this review for now due to inactivity. Tadamsmar, please message me once you log back on and if you like I can begin another review of this.

JAGUAR 19:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar, I'd like to suggest that before Tadamsmar messages you, that all the items in the above review be addressed, and that a peer review be requested and completed to help gain insight on what remains to be done to make the article ready for a GA review. SandyGeorgia said from the outset she wouldn't be able to help, but she had significant doubts about the article's readiness for GA, and the peer review would help establish where it still isn't ready and what sort of work is needed. I doubt either of you want to have a third GA review fail, and that sounds like a real possibility without significant work prior to the next nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're right. I'll message Tadamsmar to initiate a peer review before nominating for GA again. This article will need a significant amount of work before meeting the criteria, and that is bearing in mind that I didn't do a full source check in this review. JAGUAR 20:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple issues with this article, both predating the first review and and as a result of both faulty reviews. Per BlueMoonset. Jaguar, please do not re-pick up this GA review; leave it to someone who understands the issues. You indicated something sounded like "original research", which is a hint you don't understand or haven't read the article. When I have time I will fix the errors and issues introduced since and by your review. For now, there is a statement in the lead which is not even based on a third-party source, among other things and is POV and biased. I again suggest reverting to the version at the end of the last GA review, which was at least correct even though not at GA standard. If Tadasmar wants to submit it to GA again, I suggest that WT:MED be approached, and all of the secondary reviews (which I have) be consulted, and the article be thoroughly re-written and copyedited. It is a fix-up of student editing at this point, and little more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: there's no need to be rude about it. I took this review on request from Tadamsmar and was happy to offer a review. I know I'm not well versed in the theory of parent management training or anything else medical related on that matter, but really how many people on WP will be knowledgeable in that sort of thing? And if so who would be well versed in the GA criteria? I read every article I review, that's so basic. The lead doesn't need to be referenced, unless in the rare chance that the information is controversial, where in this case it isn't and thus the citations need to be moved to the body. I've read this article at least five times straight as I've reviewed it twice now. It's up to Tadamsmar on where he wants to take this next. I would recommend a peer review so that some members of WP:MED can look at the content, and then he could ask me to review it again as I'm a regular GA reviewer and know what meets the criteria. JAGUAR 17:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]