Talk:Deafness in Francophone Canada

General feedback
Nice to see this article taking shape! Overall organization looks good. The Lead section is probably the very last thing you'll write, so you may want to update that when the rest of the article is together. It's off to a good start, though. Matthall.research (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Human/Civil Rights section
I suspect that this is still probably a work in progress? That's ok - there's still time to work on it. It would benefit from an initial sentence or two orienting the reader to what the CRPD is (a link to its main wiki page would be good), before launching into the details. This background part would include what the legal status of the CRPD is in Canada, and what reports Canada has filed so far.

As currently written, the section sounds like you're describing the main text of the CRPD itself, whereas I think you're intending to describe Canada's report to the UN, which it is obliged to provide under the terms of the CRPD.

I had trouble accessing the resource that you cited in this section; the link in the references section gave me an error - please doublecheck that.

As you continue to develop the session, remember that Canada's report to the CRPD is written by Canadian officals who are trying to present Canada in the best possible light. It's therefore important to pay attention to what is *not* stated in Canada's report. Using the WFDeaf priority areas can be a helpful framework for checking that. You may also find that Deaf advocacy organizations in Canada (or Quebec specifically) may be dissatisfied with what Canada is currently doing.

Right now, this section would score between 1 and 2 out of 3. I'm confident that with continued development, it will ultimately score higher. Matthall.research (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Further comments below - apologies for the duplicate section! Matthall.research (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Language Emergence section
Initial graded feedback:

Really nice work. The only substantive info I'd like you to add is whether LSQ is considered a Deaf Community sign language or a shared-signing community. Also, please address the citation needed flag in this section.

Current score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Improvements noted! New score: 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Significant Organizations section
Initial graded feedback:

Excellent again! I concur with your classification of empowerment vs. charity, but I also see why those kinds of statements may not be viewed as wiki-appropriate. Rather than attempting to provide the requested citation in this section, you might be better off removing those classifying sentences.

The only other way I can see to improve this section is if you're able to identify any organizations that center on LSQ: it seems like there surely must be...non?

Current score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No significant changes noted: score remains 2.75/3. Matthall.research (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Human & Civil Rights section
Initial graded feedback:

About the Charter of French Language: fascinating!! But how does that square against some of the federal legislation across Canada that *does* recognize LSQ (and ASL, and some indigenous sign languages)?

CRPD section: you've provided a nice description of what Canada has done in general, but (a) remember that Canada is trying to make itself look good and (b) none of this is specific to Francophone Canada. If you're able to identify any LSQ-specific organizations/leaders, see if you can find anything about what their concerns are with respect to their human & civil rights, other than having LSQ officially recognized. One way to do that might be to dig a little deeper into *why* legal recognition is important: what rights/services would then become available that are not currently being provided?

Current score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No significant changes noted: score remains 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Early Hearing Detection & Intervention Section
Initial graded feedback:

The content about early hearing detection is outstanding (if depressing)! The content about early intervention is a little weaker, though still adequate. If you want to strengthen this section, focus on providing more information about what services are(n't) available to newly-identified DHH children and their families. I doubt that the Montreal Oral School is the *only* such program.

Current score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No significant changes noted: score remains 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Language Deprivation section
Initial graded feedback:

I love the content here, but it does need to be cited more thoroughly. If you have trouble finding appropriate citations, please let me know - this is my area of expertise and I'd be glad to help.

Current score: 1.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Citations have improved, although more would be welcome (especially in the first half). Language acquisition starts no later than birth, so 0-3y would be more accurate than 1-3.  Otherwise good.  New score: 2.25/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Primary & Secondary Education
There's some evaluative language in the opening of this section. It also describes changes in "recent years", but the citation is from 1994.

The description of the 3 schools is a major strength here. The concluding paragraph seems out of place, and also calls attention to the absence of information about secondary education. The last paragraph also leaves readers with the impression that the goals described there are successfully achieved, whereas the rest of the article suggests that that's not the case.

Score: 1.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Higher Education section
1% of the general population, or of the DHH population? Some non-neutral language in the final section ("pushing deaf students to spoken languages").

Score: 2.25/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Employment section
Nothing particularly problematic here; it's just significantly under-developed, especially with respect to explaining what the barriers to employment are. Score: 1.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Healthcare section
Generally good, although some of your sources are quite old (including at least one that's several years older than the date you cite). I'm also unsure of how reliable Wikipedia would consider an unpublished masters thesis to be. Personally, I'm comfortable with that, but perhaps I shouldn't be. Score: 2.25/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Language Endangement
Better than nothing! Score: .75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)