User talk:Chrisanchezz/sandbox

I really like what you guys are going for. My main suggestion would be to be completely unbiased in the beginning of the article, and then include an entire section for Deaf people's opinion.

Here are my notes:

-In the introduction "instead of using sign language" comes off very biased and implies that oralism and sign language are the only two methods for deaf education. -the intro itself is very biased -under the policy section, the use of the word "However" is very biased. -including that deaf people called that "the dark ages" puts a narrow lens on the article. To avoid this, try to include an oralist view point/opinion for every deaf community view point/opinion -The classroom section is very biased and unclear. Why did it horrify them? -I think you can include the comment about the "dark ages" in the 20th century section. My recommendation would be to have the first part of the article very unbiased and free of opinions, but once you get to the 20th century when deaf education methods begin rapidly changing, you can include everything. For example, "Deaf people began to take a stand against what they considered to be the "dark ages" for themselves when they were prohibited to communicate in a language that was most natural for them." Talicowen (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review
This is really well done and has a lot of potential! I like the edits you have made, and something especially impressive is how well you link to other Wikipedia pages throughout each section. The citations all seem very good, and you're covering a lot of material. You also can see where a few section titles could be changed, which is good!

I think my main critique would be regarding the Classroom section, as it seems a little more confusing than other parts. The sentences "Classes were conducted in an "unnatural" mixture of spoken and signed English. For example, "is" "was" and "the", which are not used in sign, were spelled out using the manual alphabet which is difficult to produce and comprehend.[10]" in particular are confusing and could be rephrased to flow better. You could say something like "For example, words like "is", "was", and "the" are not used in an organic sign language, but they would be spelled out with the manual alphabet which would be difficult to produce and comprehend." I think for someone unfamiliar with the nature of PSE/SEE versus ASL wouldn't really understand what you're saying about certain words not being used in sign, so it could be really important to explain that better. And there are a few things with wording/phrasing that could also be done clearer to be more comprehensible!

Overall, really well done and just minor things to work on. LJboston (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We haven't done much in this section at this point and much of it is the original text, but these are great recommendations for the changes to make there! We will certainly incorporate this when we delve into that particular section.Geo.grail (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Just to reiterate some of the things above, this is a wonderful start to the article and all of the information you presented made me want to keep reading, but I was also looking for a little more information. You can tell that you have done your research, so I am very interested to see how you delve into the information even further.

Some helpful critiques - I think that you can go even further with the history of oralism and maybe provide examples to explain the points even more in depth. - Certain partions of the article seem just a bit biased, so I think if you adjust you language and make it clear throughout the whole article that can help you rid that problem - I liked the discussion about the classroom, but add more examples similar to that! - Add another section of two connecting it to real people and showing more examples and how it functions in society today and I think you will be golden

Great job so far!

Kabarton1 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)kabarton1

Peer Review 3
Peer Review - Oralism - In lead section there is mention of the beginning of Oralism in the United States. I am wondering if there is room to expand outside of the U.S…the next section brings up Spain so it may be important to at least note its worldwide prevalence. - The lead section ends with a statement explaining the beginning of Oralism and could benefit from covering a few more important aspects of the overall article. Specifically you could expand to also talk about the end of the oralism era - History - Breaking up this section into subsections by century was a great move as a reader helps tremendously. I think the final sentence in the first paragraph could benefit from going ahead of the sentence before it. The sentence "Oralism provided members…" fits as a strong concluding sentence to this paragraph. - The first sentence of the Schools section has a few extra words (i.e its in mark, there was a popular support) - Policy section: During the congegration, no Deaf members (were) allowed to testify ○ Article could benefit from expanding the last sentence about "dark ages" with specific examples that show how dark it truly was (i.e maybe a source showing increase in deaf suicides or depression in the deaf) --> this is a very minute criticism and totally not necessary but I think to the lay person the "dark ages" term seems exaggerated but it truly was an awful time. - Policy Change section: It makes it seem like Oralism was still rampant until 2010, but that wasn't the case, right? Nickmillan (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We hadn't focused on the lead section yet, but will definitely look at the sentence order/structure and providing a more comprehensive lead paragraph. As for expanding outside of the United States, it is something we have been discussing, but aren't sure of at this point as we don't want to take on too much for our focus.Geo.grail (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 4
I think you guys have great information for this article/ wiki page! I think you guys could really create a section that focuses on schools for the deaf that use the oral method. I have been to two Clarke schools for the deaf (here in Mass. & Jacksonville Fla.) so you could possibly talk about how they are successful since there are multiple ones today? This in a way connects to comments from above about the classroom section since many have positive experiences in Oral schools for the deaf today. I know we all love sign language but there are deaf individuals out there who think oralism is the way to go and the successful way at that. I love that you all chose this topic because I think it's challenging for students like us who have a particular view on deaf education. (I completely understand how others said some stuff may come off as biased but because of our backgrounds that's expected). I think you all are on the right track.

Keep up the good work!

MMcAteer608 (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It definitely has been challenging, but an interesting topic. We have talked about including information about particular schools that use the oralism method, so these examples are really helpful! Much of what we've done so far was break up the history section, add information, and established the Efficacy section. As we continue, this is definitely helpful for finding examples and cases that are more "supportive" I guess for the oralism side/camp.Geo.grail (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback
I really appreciate how your purpose of reconstructing the oralism page is to make it sound less like a narrative. I'm wondering if you would look up academic articles in search databases like Google Scholar, Proquest, or JSTOR so you could gather more evidence from studies. I feel like the more "scientific" and evidence-based your article is, the less risk you'll have in being biased, thus making the article more credible to the audience. I'm loving the Efficacy section. Looking forward to the additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyalzrs (talk • contribs) 04:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)