Wikipedia:Peer review/Augmentative and alternative communication/archive1

Augmentative and alternative communication
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because we would like to polish up any potential problems before returning to FAC. Our previous nomination at FAC was closed for lack of reviews, rather than any particular problems (let alone any opposes!). Since then we have been working through the continuing useful comments of User:Cryptic C62, and I would like to get some more feedback too. This is rather obscure topic, perhaps, an interesting one we like to think, with a sprinkling of technology and medical information; and AAC is a vital for many people with disabilities. Thank you in advance. Thanks, Poule (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments by Bradley0110

Please accept my apologies for the time it has taken to do this review. I had planned to have it done at the weekend but it fell by the wayside.


 * This is a very well written article that has exactly the right amount of detail needed for a Wikipedia page without over-complicating things for lay readers. The sources are of a high quality and the cited material is all in the right place. I do however see an instance of weasel words in para 3 of Assessment and system implementation: you have "[...]some cultural groups[...]". Does the source give an example of these cultural groups? If not, you should attribute the "some" to the authors within the sentence.  Could you check through the article for any other instances of this?


 * I feel a little unfulfilled from reading the Specific groups of AAC users section as it doesn't cover AAC for people with multiple and profound disabilities. Can something be included for this?


 * Is there information out there about future developments in AAC? The History section appears to end in the 1990s with a brief mention at the end of the internet.

Again, a really, really good article. This is the sort of topic that needs to be an FA! Bradley0110 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you so much for your kind comments and also for taking the time to get involved :) it means a lot to all the editors involved. There's some interesting bits to respond to here - but as a quick question - there is some content on future developments at Speech_generating_device is that a bit more along the lines you were thinking? Failedwizard (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you very much Bradley0110 for your encouragement and great suggestions. We will be sure to work through them.  I have another question to add to Failedwizard's: can you explain a bit more what does multiple and profound disabilities means to you? Do you mean profound physical or intellectual challenges?  Or both?  Or perhaps you mean with sensory problems like blindness/deafness?  It will be easier to address the issue if we understand exactly what you feel is missing.
 * I think the idea of looking to the future would be a great way of ending the article, and I think that some of the ideas in that section you pointed to, Failedwizard, would be great. However, we should stick to the highest quality sources : conference proceedings, for example, are not the great sources, since despite the title they are often written months before the conference and sometimes before the research has even been done.  Poule (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To avoid duplicating conversation (and because I think it's useful on the article talk) have replied to the conference thing at Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication. I've popped a very short summary of some of the  'current and future' content across, but I don't think it's the history section is ready for it yet so it's waiting for it's time in the vocab section...  tbh what we really need is something in the history about the effects of the ipad on the industry... but unfortunately that's not a settled question yet, yet along one with secondary sources... Failedwizard (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again to you both. Poule, I was focusing more on the multiple part - individuals with more than one particular disability; the "Specific groups" is currently separated into those just with cerebal palsy or just with autism, etc. I was wondering if there is any information about how AAC can help those who have, say, both of these conditions. If the information isn't out there, then obviously it can't be added but it was just a line of thought I had on the topic. Failedwizard, the links you have provided are kind of what I was referring to. As you've said though, the article should stick to the highest quality sources and, realistically, journals won't be publishing articles on "future" developments until after they've come into use. It just seemed a shame to end the article on "Oh, and there's the internet of course." Bradley0110 (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks once more Bradley, you've been a star. Just one last question - we've got a overall goal to get this to FA - would you support a renomination? or do you think more work? Failedwizard (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)