User:Ronesiur/Language deprivation in children with hearing loss/BatArieh Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ronesiur


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Language deprivation in children with hearing loss

Lead

 * Specific comments and suggestions:
 * The lead, when taking the first paragraph into consideration, appears overly detailed and could use some condensing.
 * I suggest the following condensation of the first two sentences of the first paragraph:
 * "Language deprivation in deaf and hard-of-hearing children is a delay in language development that often occurs when sufficient exposure to any language, spoken or signed, is not provided in the first few years of a child's life, often called the critical period."
 * I believe the sentences about hearing children such as Genie could be moved into the article body. Then the paragraph that you worked on could become the continuation of the first paragraph.  The first sentence would need to be modified, but it would get rid of some unneeded info in the intro.
 * For readability, I suggest replacing the word "milieu" with "environment".
 * Or I may even suggest removing the following sentence entirely: "Children who experience limited access to language—spoken or signed—may not develop the necessary skills to successfully assimilate into the academic learning milieu."
 * The lead paragraph's open sentence could be made more clear. See suggestions above.
 * The lead paragraph mentions the main three sections, but the flow of the paragraph seems like it could be improved.
 * The lead paragraph is much more neutral than the original paragraph.
 * The information about Genie and other hearing, language deprived children is not presented later in the article, and may need to be moved or deleted.
 * The lead paragraphs may be overly detailed, and could be made more concise by removing some information.

Content

 * Specific comments and suggestions:
 * "Article Body" in sandbox / "Controversies" section under LEAD-K
 * Suggest balancing the paragraph with information from LEAD-K's own responses to these criticisms in their open letters on their home page. https://www.lead-k.org/
 * Is the final sentence of this paragraph from a source or being posed as an original idea? It seems to me since the concerns and responses were published in 2018, they come far enough after 2015 for this to be a concern.
 * "Typical language development for deaf and hard of hearing children"
 * Well done expanding the citations away from the solitary 2017 study.
 * For clarity/ease of reading, I suggest making "a developing child" the subject of the second sentence, such as, "When a developing child experiences reduced access to language it may result in behavior problems as the child does not have a way to express his wants or needs."
 * For the 4th sentence, I suggest swapping the pronoun "It" with "Language deprivation".
 * "Language acquisition in deaf children"
 * For clarity/ease of reading, I suggest for the 4th sentence: "Signed languages are natural languages with linguistic features similar to spoken languages, and the developmental milestones for children acquiring a signed language are similar to those of children acquiring a spoken language." It is the child who reaches the developmental milestones rather than the language itself.
 * Sentence 5: "Deaf children with deaf parents who sign with them thus experience language from birth, like typically developing children with normal hearing." I only looked at the abstract of the article referenced here and didn't dig into it for the answer, but does the article explicitly state "deaf parents" or does it talk about parents who sign?  The reason I ask is that I assume CODAs and other truly fluent signers who are parents of deaf infants/children can be found to provide the same language access that deaf parents can.
 * Final sentence: Rather than "However" as a conjunction, which may be seen to negate the validity of the previous sentence, what if you wrote, "At the same time"?
 * The content added and revised is relevant to the topic and up to date.
 * The only content that I see that may be missing is LEAD-K's responses (open letters) to the criticisms of their objectives.
 * This article and the changes made to it deals with a historically underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance

 * The content that has been added and modified is for the most part neutral. Addition of LEAD-K's responses will help balance this section on controversies.  It also seems that the concerns of the organizations and LEAD-K's responses were published in 2015, so I am not sure if the final sentence of the p
 * You have done an excellent job moderating the tone of this article back toward neutrality.
 * I find myself struggling with the phrase "children with hearing loss", and I can imagine Deaf readers will have this gut response as well as "hearing loss" for them can carry a strongly negative connotation. I agree the language should be people first, and that it also is not correct to leave it as it was, "Deaf and Hard of Hearing children", as the capitalization implies that these children already see themselves as members of the Deaf community.  I wonder if "children who are deaf or hard of hearing" is a fair neutral ground?  What do you think?  And maybe not making it one consistent change throughout, but varying between "children with hearing loss" and "children who are deaf and hard of hearing".  I have a feeling if you leave it as "children with hearing loss" it will not be long until someone in the Deaf community changes it back to "Deaf and Hard of Hearing children".
 * For the most part, the language used feels like it is not crafted to persuade the reader. The only language that needs to be changed here is the use of the word, "however" in the final sentence of the paragraph on "Language acquisition in deaf children".

Sources and references

 * Most sources used are secondary or are appropriate links to specific organizations' stances. A couple appear to be primary sources, but the information shared from them may come from the articles' own literature reviews.
 * The sources used are current and thorough.
 * The sources may themselves be skewed toward the pro-signing community's perspective. They do an excellent job of representing the views of the Deaf community, but may not include much from the perspective of people who focus on audition and speaking skills.  I'm not sure what to suggest here.
 * The links appear to all be working.

Organization

 * The lead paragraph(s) could be more concise and the structure of the lead could be improved upon.
 * The other paragraphs seem to have a good structure, flow, and organization.
 * I did not spot any grammatical or spelling errors.

Overall impressions

 * The content added (and deleted!) definitely improves the overall quality of the article.
 * Highlights of improvements made include:
 * a marked improvement in the neutrality of the article
 * include information about controversies that help balance the article
 * addition of needed sources throughout changed paragraphs.
 * The content added can be improved by:
 * Making the lead more concise
 * Adding information from LEAD-K's open letters responding to criticism of their proposed legislation
 * Considering a few more simple changes suggested above