User talk:Kirsten.daley/sandbox

Shane.blau (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I got feedback from a reviewer that citations should be frequent and if possible, should cite the exact location of the information being referred to. At this point in the draft, there are not yet citations for most of these claims, so specific sources will need to be added to support each statement. As I understand it, even claims like "There are different degrees of vision loss and auditory loss within each individual, thus making the entire deafblind community unique with diverse types of deafblindness involved" should be supported with a citation. One of your sources (https://nationaldb.org/library/list/6) leads to a long PDF (Etiologies and Characteristics of Deaf-Blindness) that probably could be used to support many of your statements, but you should include specific page numbers for each fact you mention.
 * I really like that you are including information about the cultural aspects of deafblindness in the introduction. Perhaps don't introduce it with "It is important to note..." because that might be seen as injecting your opinion. I think that you will need to provide some examples and references to help outside users understand the concept of culture around something that they may have considered to be a disability. This will also help the neutral tone, instead of potentially being perceived as a biased perspective. I really struggled to present a neutral perspective in my article because it's a topic that I feel strongly about, but it helped me to force myself to limit my statements to those that I could support with scholarly information. This would also be a good place to link to the "Deaf culture" Wikipedia page (although it is flagged as being mostly relevant to the US, not global).
 * There is a lot of talk on the original deafblindness page about whether the term should be hyphenated or not, so make sure all of yours follow one convention. Right now, some are hyphenated and some are not.
 * The sources you have listed right now mostly look like good secondary sources. I'm not sure about the www.your.md source. The information overlaps with other information, and I don't know how to evaluate the reliability of that information.
 * The structure of your Epidemiology section looks good. It's definitely an important missing piece of the current article. How much information are you planning to add on each section? Do you have the sources that you will use? The information you add to this section will all need to follow the guidelines for medical reliable sources (MEDRS) and that seems like it might be very time-consuming.