Wikipedia:Peer review/Help at Any Cost/archive1

Help at Any Cost
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a stable WP:GA for a while and I would like to see what people think, and what could be done to improve it. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is well-done and quite interesting. I made a few changes to punctuation, and I have a very small number of suggestions related to prose and style. My main concern is that the article might not be comprehensive in two ways; the voice(s) of the industry's promoters are missing, and the details of the hearings are missing. It's possible that the industry backers hunkered down, that their lawyers advised them not to talk, and that nothing came of the hearings. If you are thinking of taking this to FAC in the future, you'll want to make sure that the article covers these two areas somehow.


 * The image needs alt text, meant for readers who cannot see the images. WP:ALT has details.
 * The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
 * "Representative George Miller held hearings on the matter... " - Would it be helpful to add that he's a Democrat from California?
 * "In Help at Any Cost Szalavitz investigates the teen rehabilitation industry and focuses on four programs: Straight, Incorporated, a copy of the Straight Inc. program called KIDS, North Star wilderness boot camp, and the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools.[6][4][11]" - It's generally better to arrange the citations in ascending order; i.e., 4, 6, 11.
 * "Some of these programs cost parents over US$2,000 per month." - Since the article is U.S.-centric, it's not necessary to add the US in front of $2,000.
 * "calling the work "a courageous—if horrifying—study of the tough-love industry". - I changed the en dash here to an em dash because I've never seen a mixed pair before, but if the en dash is an accurate part of the quote, you should probably revert my change.
 * My change is OK; it falls under the house-style exceptions listed at WP:MOSQUOTE. Finetooth (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The House Committee on Education and Labor held additional hearings on the matter on April 24, 2008, again chaired by Representative George Miller." - Just "Miller" since his identity is fully established earlier.
 * The existing citation formatting is a mixture of m-d-y and yyyy-mm-dd. It can be either but not both. Ditto for the formatting in "Other reading" and "External links".
 * McAllister, Robert John (2007), Emotions: Mystery Or Madness, AuthorHouse, ISBN 1425982441 - What makes this a reliable source? Was it vetted by outside experts, or is it self-published?
 * I wondered about the lack of any mention of people defending or favoring these programs. Did any industry representatives or lobbyists or business owners speak at the hearing? Is anyone on record in their defense?
 * What did Miller's committee decide? Did it take any action? Did the members vote on anything or make any recommendations? Were they unanimous in their votes, recommendations, or public statements on the matter? Have any laws&mdash;state, federal, or local&mdash;been passed since the hearings to regulate this business?

I hope this helps. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have much experience with this process, but I will suggest a couple of things that strike me after reading it:


 * Each time you list the 4 programs, I have a hard time differentiating among them and have to re-read them, perhaps you could separate them with colons or semi-colons?
 * Several times you mention that the programs are not successful, but success is a relative term, and I would like to know what basis the programs are being judged against if that is in the book.
 * You go into a lot of detail about Synanon and its demise. Is that addressed extensively in the book?
 * I hope that this can help with the article a bit. Riverpa (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I will look into above. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have ordered a copy of the book and will comment more when I have read it, but the first thing that strikes me on a quick read of the article was that I was left wondering what the conclusions were ( if any) of those hearings which are mentioned in the Aftermath section of the article.Fainites barley scribs 23:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by Fainites
 * Ah good point, I will research that more. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On content.


 * A brief summary of the message/underlying beliefs/tough love philosophy of proponents would be helpful. (It's summed up quite neatly in the introduction from p.3 onward). The book deals with how being a teenager is seen as a pathological state and the fact that in the US parents have the right to send their children to whatever lockdown facitilies they choose, without appeal or the need for any justification or diagnosis. This is something many non-US readers may not be aware of.
 * Timelines. The book takes some pains to chart the rise and fall of these programmes and how the same or similar idea moves from one type of programme to another after scandals, investigations and official censure. You cover Synanon. However, you don't mention The Seed which is equally covered in the book. The Seed was based on Synanon but it is equally important - not least because it was a government-funded behaviour modification programme and it was investigated and criticised in the 70s. Straight Inc. sprung directly from The Seed in response to the decline of The Seed and parent led anti-drug campaigns. The rise of the wilderness bootcamp comes with the decline of Straight Inc. and the like, and links here from combining the ideas of state funded bootcamps with old-fashioned wilderness programmes and adding Synanon/Straight/Seed "tough love". The "speciality school", though existing already, gathers strength following scandals and investigations about the wilderness programmes and you can find out the information here. WWASP took off after Bacon's death. est really comes in with WWASP. KIDS had Medicaid until 1998.
 * I think the rise of facilities based abroad for US teens in places like Western Samoa, Mexico and Czech is worth a mention. These ones tended to fall foul of local laws on child abuse.
 * The book also makes the point about the financial advantages of wilderness programmes. No facilities or trained staff, minimal equipment and food, huge fees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainites (talk • contribs)
 * If we can find secondary sources for this stuff, that would be excellent. I would rather not engage in WP:OR and rely on primary sources in this article. Cirt (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything I suggested is in the actual book I was thinking in terms of beefing up the description of the books contents rather than adding any outside material. Fainites barley scribs 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but so far I have used entirely secondary sources for the Contents subsection, and I am a bit apprehensive about mixing that section to then include both secondary and primary sources. Cirt (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. Fainites barley scribs 16:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Critical reviews. I searched around to see if I could find any serious responses by proponents other than comments on blogs but no luck so far! Fainites barley scribs 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding what happened following those congressional reviews - there's some links here to proposed legislation etc. Here is Millers opening statement . It looks as if this resulted in legislation earlier this year.Fainites barley scribs 16:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrm, would rather use secondary sources for information on that, if possible. Not sure if there are secondary sources directly linking results of that legislation to this release here book. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)