Talk:Deafness in South Korea

Human/Civil Rights section
There's a lot to love here! First, your writing style and use of citations are excellent: a perfect fit for Wikipedia. Nice work! I also love the clear organizational structure you've adopted, and the concise amount of background information you provided to help the reader: just right!

It looks like you're planning to continue developing the section: if the rest ends up looking like what's already here, it will be a 3/3 for sure! But even at this point it's certainly at the "satisfactory" level, and probably a bit higher. You're welcome to be as thorough as you wish, but you shouldn't feel like you *need* to be exhaustively comprehensive in order to receive an "exemplary" score here.

A few points of clarification:

-I was surprised by this part: "Article 2: The initial report demands that..." First, Article 2 is just about defining "language" in a way that's inclusive of sign languages. Second, state party reports don't make demands: they report what the country is doing. Please double check all this.

-The discussion of sign language standardization is often a red flag to me, since natural languages are not the kinds of things that one can really "standardize". Have you been able to figure out how any Deaf-led organizations (e.g. KAD) feel about these standardization efforts?

-You mention something about sign language videos for visually impaired students... is that right? That just seems like an odd choice... Matthall.research (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I edited the word choice of that Article 2 sentence. About the sign language videos, I also thought it seemed strange but I double-checked and that's what the report says. Marley C T (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Initial graded feedback:
 * Looks like your extensive research & reporting is being flagged as potentially too detailed for wikipedia! I'm actually impressed: that's the first time I've seen a student's article "earn" that flag!  I think the level of detail is justified, but it's a bit out of scale with the rest of the article, so I can see why someone flagged it.  Providing a slightly higher-level summary might improve the article, but I'm not going to penalize your score for that.
 * Current score: 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Language Emergence section
Initial graded feedback:

This is everything that I'd want to see: definitely merits an "exemplary" rating.

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

PEER REVIEW: KELLY OBRIEN I agree with Professor Hall! Great job with this section and I just wanted to add how impressive your Wiki article is already! I cannot wait to see you progression and the rest of your article throughout the semester!

Significant Organizations section
Initial graded feedback:

All of the content here is fantastic, and meticulously-cited: very well done! The only reason this isn't a 3/3 is that it seems difficult to believe that KAD is the *only* significant organization. You're welcome to list any organizations that have a significant impact of the lives of DHH Koreans, regardless of whether they are Deaf-led or not. (But do help your reader identify the difference!)

Current score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Final graded feedback:
 * The addition of the KADCA is noted and appreciated! Score: 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW: KELLY OBRIEN The Korean Association of the Deaf is a great association that you have provided a lot of information about. It seems that this section may need a couple more organizations because, as a reader, I would think that there is only one significant organization in the region of interest since it is not stated that there are more. I would suggest to add more organizations or state if there are not that many if you cannot find any. However, you did a phenomenal job explaining the association and it is great example of ow future organizations can be added to this section! Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly0br (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Early Hearing Detection & Intervention section
Initial graded feedback:

This section is the weakest part of the (generally-impressive) article. Here's where I see room for improvement if you'd like to strengthen it:

-Early hearing detection: currently, is there *universal* newborn hearing screening? If not, what percent of children are screened at birth? What happens when they do not pass the screening?

-Early intervention: right now, the article says absolutely nothing about what happens when a child is identified as DHH. What does early intervention look like? Are they given opportunities to learn KSL? Are they provided with hearing aids and/or cochlear implants? What supports are available?

Current score: 1.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Final graded feedback:
 * Some helpful information added on the early hearing screening side, but still not much detail on the early intervention side. The discussion is limited to cochlear implants, but it's not clear whether that's because that's the only form that EI takes in South Korea.  I strongly doubt that; anywhere that can provide CIs will also be able to provide hearing aids, which are not mentioned.  The greater unknown regards the options for early intervention to support sign language acquisition.
 * New score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 PEER REVIEW: KELLY OBRIEN This section seems very well written but more information may be needed. As Professor Hall said, how many or what is the percentage of children being tested? Is it every child? Is it mandatory after birth? Why did they change this way to testing/ Is there more children born deaf or had-of-hearing? What happens when a child is deaf? Do they give them ways to learn sign, provide hearing aids, etc? You have great information throughout this section, but definitely can be extended!

Primary & Secondary Education
Final graded feedback:

Very, very nice! The only thing that keeps me from giving this a 3/3 is that it seems important to know whether Deaf education in Korea began in the oral tradition (as was most globally prevalent at the time), or the manual tradition (which remained more active in the US, and hence might have been imported by Rosetta Hall.)

I found your second paragraph especially gratifying to read: this is exactly what most readers will want to know.

Score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Higher education
Final graded feedback:

I learned a lot from this section! The second paragraph again was especially illuminating, and a welcome ray of good news in an otherwise bleak global landscape! It makes me wonder what those corresponding stats look like in the US.

The only significant omission here is more information about what form those accommodations take: interpreters, captioning, note-taking, etc...?

Score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Employment
Final graded feedback:

This section is strong on theory and light on practice. In other words, it's very informative about how things are *supposed* to work, but doesn't provide much (any?) information about how things actually work.

Score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Healthcare
Final graded feedback:

This section provides less useful information that previous ones. It will probably disappoint a reader who wants to know about DHH people's experience with healthcare access in South Korea. As in the previous section, there's much more theory than practice. In addition, the fact that the section starts with information about cochlear implants gives readers the impression that what DHH people are looking for from healthcare systems is to have their hearing fixed. That is generally not the case.

Score: 1/3 Matthall.research (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)