User talk:Kec30/sandbox

Peer's review
Your editions did Great job! It seems neutral and used nice resources.

Some advices Lip reading - “contextual and must be filled in by brain processes. While the skill of lip reading may be useful to some people, it is not a reliable skill to most as there are many variables that could affect their ability to comprehend a person’s speech.” If you mention the reason why lip reading skill may be useful to some people, you can indicate how much lip reading needs severe condition for Deaf. You showed nice dates about lip reading and it shows how much lip reading is difficult!!!!

Communication option How about referring consonant and vowel when you explain cued speech.

Hearing Loss Peer Review -- Abbey Bucklin
I think that the edit to reorganize the treatment section to include language options, assistive devices, and other options is a great idea. Adding language options is important I think, because using assistive technology is not the only option for those with hearing loss. I also agree with the thought of maybe changing the word treatment, especially if you include language options, because these technologies and methods aren't necessarily "treatments," but more like resources(?) (maybe not the best word for it but I can't think of what exactly to call it).

It seems that all of the edits you propose to make are neutral and objective. Many of them are just subtle changes to the wording of statements that adds or clarifies important information. I think that many of the word choice changes you propose are important, and actually work to make the article more neutral.

I think that it is important that you add a little bit more to language deprivation in deaf children as you suggested. In the article now, it is merely mentioned in passing and the real magnitude of the issue is not expressed. However, make sure to do this in an unbiased way (maybe by stating facts from good sources).

Overall, I think everything looks great so far! This article already had a lot of information, but the edits that you suggested are definitely beneficial to the overall article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abucklin (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer review
Overall very good changes, the main thing that stuck out to me was the beginning few edits are very scientific, maybe find a way to explain them in easier to understand terms for people who are not so scientifically literate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.208.150 (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review (Anna Lim Franck)
''Use of the word “disability”. Can we find a better word for this statement?''

Very good question. You're jumping into a long and painful ongoing debate about whether deaf people should be considered "disabled." One camp says they should because it means they get to be recognized within Disability Studies and be able to reap the benefits/knowledge of a long-established field. This also entails recognition of deaf people's rights under laws that relate to the rights of disabled individuals in general. Also, it establishes solidarity between deaf people and others who are disabled but not deaf and between disabled and DeafDisabled groups. The other camp says the deaf identity is a cultural one and therefore, placing it under the "Disability" banner is doing us deaf people a disservice. I have no great answer but it'll be worth noting the context and motivation upon which the word "disability" is used in the deaf community.

Within that same quote where "disability" is noted, you might want to question what the writer specifically means by "low and middle income countries." GDP? Third World countries? Poverty level?

Changing the word “treatment”

I think I like that you're changing the word "treatment". It evokes the medical model which, I believe, you're trying to get away from.

Language Deprivation for deaf Children ( Trying to develop a brief wording/ statement relating to how many dhh children do not have access to a full and complete first language in a way that is unbiased… )

I believe Dr. Caselli has a clear definition of "language deprivation" that concretely outlines what it means to be language-deprived-- "reduced access to either a signed or spoken language". Maybe her definition could be a brief statement that is unbiased?

Assistive Devices and Assistive Technology

Great move to move (hah!) "Assistive Technology" to its own category.

(A book and a woman explains her own experience growing up as “hearing-impaired”-might be too biased but just a possible addition)

Agreeing with you. Maybe if you provide a full range of sources representing different communities within the deaf community, it could have a neutralizing effect on your list of sources/references.

---

Overall, I think your edits are useful and highlights the slightly problematic wordings in the original. Anna Lim Franck 00:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annalimfranck (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

suggestions from Naomi
This is a great outline!

I love the idea of adding a language deprivation section. You might think about making it shorter and with less quotes. You'll need to find the citations for some of this (let me know if you need help) but you could say something like: The majority of deaf infants are at risk for language deprivation because their parents do not yet know a sign language and because they have limited or no access to spoken language. Even with the best available technology (e.g., cochlear implants, hearing aids) and interventions, about half of all deaf children will enter kindergarten with spoken language skills below the 16th percentile (Cite the Geers 2017 paper here), and it is currently not possible to predict which children will and will not successfully learn a spoken language. Two small scale studies show that spoken language skills in children with early exposure to sign language are generally quite good (cite papers by Davidson, Chen Pinchler, and Lillo Martin; Hassansadeh). Further, sign language exposure can protect against the effects of language deprivation (e.g., Theory of Mind, Executive Function etc.).

You can find lots of citations in my recent paper with Matt Hall and Wyatte Hall, and in the slides from the lecture on Language Deprivation.Ncaselli (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)