User talk:MMcAteer608/sandbox

Hey homes - no fucking school tomorrow! Keep on truckin' Structure1019 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Your introduction to the topic of Simultaneous Communication is relative and contains a clear and concise definition. However, if there could possibly be a citation connected to the definition that you provided, it would be a good addition for Wikipedia's standards. I also don't think that there needs to be a statement in the definition that describes who is using SimCom. Solely the fact that you state what it could be used with can provide a better insight on the idea of SimCom.

I think that if you put the Methods of Total Communication before the positive and negative approaches; it could offer a better flow of information for the reader. As an outside, it could be difficult to understand everything that is mentioned about the "Positives" and "Negatives" without the context. This could also be true for the following sections; "Different kids of sign languages" and "Early Intervention with SC".

I feel that adding on more statistics/research studies that have taken place in the past few years could create a better context for the "Positive" and "Negative" approach; especially since using SimCom comes with a lot of backstory and controversy nowadays.

The use of a rhetorical question in the article does not seem to match up well with the layout of an encyclopedia; I would recommend integrating the set up of "Positive" and "Negative" into the paragraph instead of the question.

If possible, I would recommend adding a "History" or more detailed section about the use of SimCom in the past and how it has effected involved communities.

Your outlined topics seem to be good additions to the article that you have chosen. Chrisanchezz (talk)
 * I absolutely agree with Chrisanchezz. You have really fantastic sources that are reliable. I think something that could be helpful is not specifically setting up a pros and cons heading, but focusing on the actual effectiveness of it. This does not necessarily require a "pros and cons" heading at all. One thing that you could also look into is which schools employ simultaneous communication and see the student academic success of the students. Like Chris mentioned, a history of simcom could be helpful to set up a structure of what is to come; but I am hesitant about that. I don't think it's productive to focus so heavily on history to where you're ignoring the effectiveness and the research of simcom. I'd also avoid trying to compare other types of communication to simcom, as someone mentioned. That may distract from the actual focus of the Wiki page. I hope this helps. Amandapg (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

So I just want to make a few comments about your article. Firstly, you have a lot of reliable sources that will help you in providing information about your article. That is good. I am not sure how you plan to structure your article but a suggestion would be to put it in an order that flows nicely. Just as an example, you could start with your lead section first, of course, then before you give positive and negative approaches to SC, you could give a brief history/overview of SC (how it came about), followed by studies/research done on SC, then under that topic you could put what was found in the studies, positive then negative approaches. You could then follow it by having another bullet point of early intervention and then methods of total communication. Here is what I mean:

Simultaneous Communication

(Lead Section)

History/Overview (Paragraph) Studies/Research (Paragraph) • Positive Approaches • Negative Approaches

Early Intervention with SC     (Paragraph) Methods of Total Communication (Paragraph) (I am not sure if this would help but it is a suggestion)

Also, be careful with the topic “different kinds of signed languages.” ASL is a signed language but SEE and Cued Speech are not signed languages or languages at all but versions that people used to substitute. So another thing I notice would be wording. Be careful with your word choices. Be careful using “we” and be careful with biases opinions. Example, “There is no way to speak Spanish and English at the same time, the same stands for ASL and English the two do not match up successfully.” That sentence could be rephrased in a different way, possibly. Also, be mindful of using the website www.handspeak.com as a reference. I am not sure if it is a reliable source. It is a good website but just be careful using it as a reference. Bre&#39;miller (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review
As others have noted, you have a ton of great information to work with and reliable sources! I think what you can work on from here is organization. It's a little hard to follow your current structure with what is in the original wikipedia page and what is your proposed edits. I think you have a ton of things you want to cover, and you might want to consolidate some of them (eg, the positive and negative sections into one section that just presents both positive and negative things, which would also help in being more neutral). Additionally, it would be good to cite more so we know where each source comes in!

My favorite thing so far is how much you're working on, and how you're tackling a challenging subject. It can be hard to explain the drawbacks of Simcom without being really biased or imbalanced in the presentation of the topic, so I think you're doing a really great job with this. Keep going! LJboston (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

feedback
I like the things that you have so far! I'm wondering if you would look into academic journals for evidence/information from studies by using a database search on Google Scholar, Proquest, JSTOR or something through the BU library website. That would make your research more "scientific," thus more credible to the audience reading your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyalzrs (talk • contribs) 04:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)