Wikipedia:Peer review/Person Centred Planning/archive1

Person Centred Planning

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is ready for the intense scrutiny of Wikipedia editors, and will benefit from their improvements and suggestions.

It is about an approach and set of values that is gaining ground internationally across the social care sector, quite an exciting way of enabling the person to receive personalised support from services that previously might have been impersonal and unresponsive to what really matters to people.

I think it's worth attention and improvement not just because it is notable, but because it is interesting and exciting - a collaborative co-created approach not unlike wikipedia itself.

Thanks,

Max (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Review from Scartol

Per your request, I've had a look at this article. It appears to be focused on an important topic, but as a layperson with absolutely no knowledge of the field being discussed, I feel lost and confused by it. Much of the prose is vague, and I feel as though it's been written largely by people in the field for people in the field. Let's look at the lead, for example:

• Person Centred Planning (PCP) is a process designed to assist someone to make plans for their future. This is a very ambiguous sentence. I feel that the first sentence should give a phrase about who generally uses it, and what specific purpose it serves. "someone" is perplexingly unclear. "make plans" about what? Vacation destinations? Education paths? Diet choices? This needs to be more specific.

• It is used most often as a life planning model to enable individuals with disabilities to increase their personal self-determination and improve their own independence. Okay, this is better – but is there really much of a difference between "increase their personal self-determination" and "improve their own independence"? If so, does this distinction really belong in the first paragraph of the article? A better use of the valuable first few sentences (which will either draw the reader in or repulse her/him) is to explain how PCP differs from other leading models of "life planning" (a phrase which is pretty unclear to me as well).

• Person Centred Planning was adopted as government policy in the United Kingdom through the 'Valuing People' White Paper in 2001, and is accepted as good practice in many countries throughout the world. The first part of this sentence is okay, but the second part is rather vague. Better to give other examples of governments which use it, or statements from advocacy groups(?) and/or health organizations(?) which endorse it.

• It is most often used for life planning with people with learning and developmental disabilities, You've already said this, right? So it's unnecessary.

• though recently it has been advocated as a method of planning personalised support with other sections of society who find themselves disempowered by traditional methods of service delivery, including older people. Very unclear to me. "Other sections of society" brings to my mind zip codes and area codes. I admit to having no idea what "traditional methods of service delivery" are; I'm envisioning a housekeeping company.

• Also note that the "including older people" phrase at the end will – in the minds of most readers – be applied to the noun closest to it, in this case "methods of service delivery", which makes no sense. I'd say something like "...with other individuals – especially older people – who are disempowered by...".

I suppose my point here is – and this is something I've said frequently about software designers – it's vital to write about your topic in a way that the uninitiated will be able to understand. If this article has indeed been written by folks in the field of study being discussed, you'll need to find ways to think like an outsider: Question your assumptions about what's being discussed, and try to write sentences that require no prior knowledge (or as little as possible) about the concepts involved.

Some other points in the body of the article:

• I would retitle "Theoretical basis" as "Background". Start by discussing the people who came up with it, and explain what they described as the shortcomings with the existing methods.

• any methods used must be reflective of the individual's personal communication mechanisms What on earth is a "personal communication mechanism"? Is that anything like "talking"? I worry that we may be overdoing it with the jargon here. (Or, it's also possible that – as above – specific terms are being used with which the layperson isn't familiar. In such a case, explanation or alternative wording is necessary.)

• The article needs many more citations. They should also be in one consistent format; currently it has some footnotes, some parenthetical citations, and large blocks of text with no sources cited at all.

• Blockquotes should only be used when the quotation is four lines or more, and it should be set apart from the article with the {{bquote}} template (or one like it). See Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations.

Good luck with this article – the editors involved obviously have a great knowledge about and passion for this subject. The next step is to translate it into a format that the rest of the world can access. Please let me know if you have any other questions. – Scartol • Tok 15:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Roger Davies

Thanks for the invitation to peer-review this. I'll comment very broadly as my suggestions (and they are, of course, only suggestions) will considerably change the content and structure of the article.

• First, I echo Scartol's remark about citations. In a nutshell, see WP:V for what to cite and WP:REF for how to cite it.
• The intro needs to explain unambiguously and in jargon-free language what PCP is. Simply calling it a process designed to assist someone is not clear enough. The introduction needs to explain what steps the process involves. Generally, article introductions are two to four paragraphs in length, so the current one needs expanding to summarise the sections that follow.
• I recommend a new Background section to explain the pre-PCP problem and then go on to explain the PCP solution.
• To be honest, the current Theoretical basis section reads like extracts from a Powerpoint presentation. It should be dispassionate: that is, read less like a brochure or prospectus and more like an entry in a global encyclopedia. The list of founding parents needs considerable explanation. Names without context don't mean much. Some of these could be wiki-linked, if articles exist, others could have some explanation of their credentials.
• The second paragraph of Methods is almost entirely jargon. I suggest it is expanded and clarified – with wiki-links, text, or both – so that the curious lay-reader can grasp the principles.
• The Limitations section says only what its advocates, um, advocate. I have concerns about neutrality. What are the drawbacks of PCP? What do critics say? These views need to be sought out and included within the article.
• The Outcomes section would greatly benefit from some peer-reviewed material from the healthcare press. Discussion of studies would also be good.

As ever, if you have any questions, please contact me, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)