User:Hjlipsky/sandbox

Which article are you evaluating?
Language deprivation in deaf and hard of hearing children

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I care about the Deaf community and Deaf and Hard of Hearing rights. I have taken ASL classes before that had a heavy focus on Deaf history and rights and I follow a lot of people on social media that are either Deaf or the Child Of a Deaf Adult (CODA), so I already know a bit about this subject. This subject matters because it has a direct link to Deaf individual's quality of life. I knew going in that I had a bias in favor of Bi-Bi education that the article defines and the ideology around it, including that people always have a right to easily accessible language no matter their environment or physical abilities. I also knew going in that there are opposing sides to this view. My preliminary impression of the article was that it shared a lot of my biases.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section
The first sentence does not seem to define language deprivation well because it only states that it occurs under certain circumstances instead of defining exactly what it is while the content later hints at it being a state of the brain. The lead also does not clearly define the rest of the article; it does show some progression of ideas but leaves out different views, treatments, and legal action that is being taken. The lead also references cases of language deprived hearing children which are never referenced again. The lead seems somewhat concise but poorly organized.

Content
The content of the article is about a marginalized group; however, the article largely does not use what the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community considers proper capitalization of the words Deaf and Hard of Hearing when referring to people (as opposed to conditions). The content and sources are up to date and give a full account of one biased opinion.

Tone and Balance
Like the message preceding the article states, this article was quite biased. It seemed like the motivation behind this article was to make readers aware of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing point of view because it largely presented that point of view as fact and the point of view of those in favor of lip reading and hearing aides to be offhanded comments. Fringe views were never well defined and only one view was made central to the article. The article seems clearly persuasive as is evident in the sentence "The importance of a cooperative team for the success of early intervention cannot be emphasized enough" from the "Early Intervention" section.

Sources and References
The message preceding the article clearly indicates that more and improved sources are needed. However, with that said, the sources that the article does have are mostly up to date or referring to older studies done, and the links do work.

Organization and Writing Quality
Aside from the lead, the writing does seem organized; however, possibly as a matter of personal preference, I think the article should have more short, focused paragraphs than the long, encompassing paragraphs that it currently has. Those paragraphs are concise in that they cover the sub-topic well, but I think splitting them up and keeping that conciseness through the section would be better.

Images and Media
The article does not include any media.

Talk page discussion
The Talk page is quite brief with only 7 entries total which is surprising to me because it is related to two different Wikipedia projects and C-rated in both. The talk page is also largely referencing specific problems like issues with the phrasing of specific sentences or updates of big yet still specific changes made like reorganization.

Overall Impression
The article seems largely underdeveloped and strongly biased. In order for this article to reach its full potential, it needs to be mostly rewritten to include different points of view; however, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing point of view is already quite strongly developed. It also needs a correction to its capitalization to be respectful to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community.