User talk:Adrisheh/sandbox

Emily's Peer Review
I think these are some important edits to be made to the section on Deafness. Here is some feedback!

Instead of saying that Deaf children do not receive the same input as hearing children, maybe say that Deaf children do not receive auditory input like hearing children do. But, still acquire language in the same way!

The second to last sentence of the first paragraph could use some re-wording. Deaf children are not isolated from sound and speech, but rather access the world through the visual modality. Speech is just a modality, not language. Also, what do you mean that deaf children of Deaf parents tend to do better with language? This is unclear. With what language? ASL or spoken language? Written language? All of the above?

“Especially those who receive cochlear implants earlier in life show improvements.” Improvements in what? Speech recognition? This needs to be cited and explained.

In addition the first sentence of your last paragraph asserts your own opinion about using sign language. It is SUPER important to keep your second sentence, to acknowledge that a foundational L1 supports the acquisition of a L2, but be explicit, again, about which language developers better with a cochlear implants when individuals have a strong L1 foundation. Is it better speech? Make this explicit!

Just some food for thought!

Peer Review
Your section looks great! I just have a few minor suggestions:
 * Potentially work your topic into the lead section of this article, even if very minimally.
 * Not sure if this is possible, but I would suggest adding some more statistical evidence about language acquisition by deaf children paralleling language acquisition by hearing children.
 * I would give cochlear implants their own subsection, I think it would better organize your section, and again add more statistical evidence and citation in that section.
 * The last paragraph (while I agree you) comes off as biased and non-factual, but I'm sure you can find evidence to back that up and add in.
 * I think it would be great if you could work in Language Deprivation somewhere and link to that page, as it greatly affects language acquisition.

Good work! --Sburkholder (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
"Therefore, as many studies have shown, Language acquisition by deaf children parallels the language acquisition of a spoken language by hearing children." (minor grammar edit for subject verb agreement)

"Despite these developments, most prelingually deaf children are unlikely to develop good speech and speech reception skills." This really needs a citation, because "most" implies a statistical majority, so the claim requires the numbers to back it up.

"Humans are biologically equipped for language, whether that be a spoken or signed language." Is there a way to work this in to the context better? I'm not sure if there's something I'm missing, but it feels a bit abrupt, and somewhat of a nonsequiter. Perhaps you could say this elsewhere in the article.

"However, deaf children of deaf parents tend to do better with language" This should really have a source as well.

Structure suggestion: I would break the first paragraph in two, with the second starting from "Other options besides sign language...", and combine this second part with your second paragraph by inserting your second paragraph after "which are placed under the skin and inside the cochlea". There is some redundancy between these two sections which could be removed, and I think combining them would improve the article's flow.

I really like your additions to this article. You're definitely adding some much-needed substance! Laineyh (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)