User:BatArieh/Language acquisition by deaf children/Ck320492 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BatArieh


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BatArieh/Language_acquisition_by_deaf_children?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Language acquisition by deaf children

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Content
The draft content doesn't appear to have been moved into the public-facing article. I recommend moving your edits into the published article.


 * Sandbox intro paragraph draft:
 * The intro content that will be added earlier in the article appears relevant to the article, up to date, and has pertinent content.
 * Sandbox reading sub-section draft:
 * One paragraph appears incomplete? Copied below:
 * According to the ability to read fluently requires two essential abilities: decoding (matching . Once they have acquired a signed or spoken language, deaf children learn how to map between their exisiting vocabulary of signed/spoken words and printed words.[citation needed]
 * The ending sentences appear to be from the original subsection, and currently don't flow well with your other improved content:
 * "The deaf child's social context is crucial for nurturing his or her capacity to read. Research shows that deaf children born to deaf parents are usually better readers than deaf children born to hearing parents."
 * Overall, this sub-section is improved from the current version - which doesn't have any citations despite research claims, is not as neutral as your edits, and does not flow as easily between ideas.
 * The content describing how information travels from the eyes to various parts of the brain would be well accompanied with an image. I'm thinking specifically of the "reading circuit" picture that Dr. Karen Emmorey has used in lectures, similar to this wikicommons image, though this particular one seems to describe something like dyslexia.

Tone and Balance

 * Sandbox draft: your edits are much more neutral compared to the current version. I'm not able to discern that the author is trying to persuade me one way or the other on reading skill acquisition in deaf children. I also cannot determine that there is a positive or negative skew.
 * This sentence in the reading subsection: "Although chaining is not widely used, it creates an understanding between the visual spelling of a word and the sign language spelling of the word. This helps the child become bilingual in both ASL and spoken language."
 * reads slightly persuasively, implying that sandwiching is a more inferior method and that it doesn't help the child become bilingual in both ASL/spoken language.
 * The last two sentences in the reading subsection: "The deaf child's social context is crucial for nurturing his or her capacity to read. Research shows that deaf children born to deaf parents are usually better readers than deaf children born to hearing parents."
 * read more unbalanced than your other content, but this is still verbatim from the original writing.

Sources and references

 * Sandbox draft article: new content appears partially backed up by current, thorough, secondary sources. The authors do not seem diverse in background as at least 3/4 appear female and white, though the field is predominantly female and white. I think additional secondary sources could be added that are not just reference chapters or review articles, that may help diversify authorship.
 * Sandbox draft article: the new paragraph to be edited earlier into the article doesn't appear to have citations, but needs several:
 * How do we know that most deaf children are born to hearing parents, and fewer are deaf of deaf?
 * Maybe NIDCD quick stats
 * How do we know hearing parents learn sign at varying degrees?
 * Maybe could reference the Family ASL project tracking hearing parents and deaf children learning sign at the same time
 * How do we know the benefits/risks of CIs?
 * Maybe FDA notes
 * Sandbox draft article links to new references:
 * In-text citation links appear to work. New references link to chapters on prevailing theories of child development and reading and deaf studies in literacy.
 * Third new source, VL2 document, doesn't appear to be cited in the new content. Is this supposed to be in place of the link that says [citation needed]?
 * Sandbox draft - reading sub-section about "chaining topic"
 * I think you could add more references about chaining and sandwiching.
 * Maybe like this public-facing educational video on chaining from the Minnesota Department of Health Commission on DDBHH?

Organization

 * Sandbox draft: Overall, this subsection and earlier paragraph are well written with clarity and generally free of grammar/spelling errors. I especially like the explanations within parentheses which make content feel more accessible to wider audiences.
 * Sandbox reading subsection draft:
 * Generally, this subsection reads cohesively, but two sections seem incomplete or don't transition well with the rest of the subsection:
 * "According to the ability to read fluently requires two essential abilities: decoding (matching . Once they have acquired a signed or spoken language, deaf children learn how to map between their exisiting vocabulary of signed/spoken words and printed words.[citation needed]"
 * "The deaf child's social context is crucial for nurturing his or her capacity to read. Research shows that deaf children born to deaf parents are usually better readers than deaf children born to hearing parents."
 * Otherwise, the subsection flows well and the other parts in this subsection transition well between each other.

Overall impressions
Overall, the edited content improves overall quality through the following strengths:


 * Simple wording and accessible, non-jargon language
 * Clearer transitions between ideas
 * Addition of sources, particularly secondary sources
 * Rewording of tone to be more neutral and less biased

Content added can be improved by:


 * Adding more diverse sources
 * Improving or merging existing, unedited content better with your improved content
 * Adding drafted changes into the published article