User talk:Organism438/Deafness in Italy

Language Emergence section
The content here is good, but desperately needs references! Matthall.research (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As the semester goes on, you'll probably want to move some of the content here to other sections, and/or link to other articles: for instance, the part about legal recognition probably belongs in human/civil rights. You should link to the wiki page on Deaf Community Sign Languages and to the Milan Congress.   I would also like to see more information about the timeline: when did LIS originate?  Does it predate the Milan Congress, or did that sign language die out and LIS is what replaced it? Matthall.research (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Initial graded feedback:
 * -I'm glad to see that you've added references! However, it looks like you weren't using the wiki reference function.  Fortunately, someone else has fixed them for you, but you'll need to make sure you know how to use that function in the future.   I'd be happy to review that with you if you want.
 * -When discussing the survival of sign languages, make sure that your references are specific to Italy.
 * -Please attend to the rest of my previous comments, and to the flags in your article
 * Current score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Final graded feedback:
 * Minor improvements noted and appreciated - new score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Significant Organizations Section
Nice work: this would score no lower than a 2/3 in its present form. To move it closer to 3, I'd want to see information like this about a few more organizations, such as those listed on the Gallaudet directory. I know that not all of those links work, but don't let that stop you! Developing search skills is one of the things I want you to learn in this course. Matthall.research (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * -I think you've quoted "103 provincial Sections, 21 Regional Councils and over 50 inter-munipal representations" in an effort to avoid plagiarism?  In this case, since it's just a list, it's ok to use the same verbiage without quoting.
 * -The quotations at the end of the paragraph are more justified, but paraphrasing would be even better.
 * -I especially appreciate your description of FIADDA: very objective & neutral - well done!
 * -The paragraph about the Coda group is harder to understand. Are you saying that in 2014, an Italian chapter of an international organization for Codas was founded in Italy?  Needs to be rewritten for clarity.  Be especially careful to identify whether you're describing the Italian chapter,  the international organization (which would be fine to include here) or the American chapter (which does not belong here).
 * Current score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Final graded feedback:
 * No significant changes noted; score remains 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Human/Civil Rights section
I learned a lot from this section - very nice! This is no lower than a 2, and could fairly easily become a 3. Most of the points below are quite minor and should be easy to address:

-"The country of Italy was ratified on 15 May 2009." Passive voice gives the wrong idea here - Italy was the body that ratified the CRPD, not the other way around.

-"The committees will create a "list of issues" with civilian input." This makes it sound like Italy is the one that creates the list of issues; instead, it's the UN that does this. They send the list of issues to Italy, and Italy responds in the state party report.

-You mention two specific laws in the body of the article; is either of them the same law that resulted in LIS being officially recognized? That would be worth stating.

-When you list the articles & goals that were not mentioned, the reader would benefit from knowing why these are of particular importance: a brief mention of WFDeaf should help there.

-"As regards to having "reasonable accommodation in the workplace" the report says " Even though the Italian legal framework does not state the obligation to adopt reasonable accommodation, and does not consider its violation as a form of discrimination against people with disabilities" which goes against CRPD article 5." The quotation that you used seems like the first half of a sentence, where the second half might be critically important, so I tried to look up the quote using the reference that you provided. It takes me to a webpage that's fairly generic, and certainly does not contain the quote. I was able to track down the source by googling, although I did have some trouble with a security error, and could only access a cached version of the page (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Bwkuk_oi7a4J:www2.ohchr.org/spdocs/crpd/futuresession/crpd.c.ita.1-eng.doc&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us). If that happens, you too need to direct the reader to whatever source will enable them to actually verify the quote, and its context. Speaking of which: I do think that your critique here is well-founded, even after reading the 2nd clause of the sentence, but I suspect that other readers will be confused. I recommend paraphrasing instead of quoting here.

-The final sentence is evaluative rather than factual, and therefore not appropriate for wikipedia.

Matthall.research (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Initial graded feedback:
 * -Lots of improvement here: great! In the paragraph where you list the WFDeaf's priority areas that went unaddressed, I think I list format would work better than a paragraph format.
 * -That also goes for the paragraph that follows, with the list from the Civil Society organizations.
 * Current score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Final graded feedback:
 * Still strong, and I appreciate the reorganization into list format. Looks like some Wikipedians think it may be too detailed, but I'm not going to penalize you for that.  New score: 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)