Wikipedia:Peer review/Speech generating device/archive1

Speech generating device
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have a long term goal to get the subject more completely covered on wikipedia - maybe even to FA one day - there was also an issue with the article's GA status being challenged very soon after the status was achieved so I think a peer review might resolve any lingering doubts in the community.

Thanks, Fayedizard (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Cryptic C62


 * "Speech generating devices (SGD)" Pluralized phrases should have pluralized acronyms (SGDs), as suggested by this section of the MOS.
 * I've gone through and made a few changes - thanks for the tip :)


 * "Speech generating devices (SGD) have their roots in early electronic communication aids, the first of which was a sip-and-puff typewriter controller named the Patient Operated Selector Mechanism (POSM or POSSUM) prototyped by Reg Maling in the United Kingdom in 1960" Too many ideas being crammed into one sentence. I suggest splitting after "communication aids".
 * Done. Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "scanning teletypewriter controller" What's this?
 * Good point, rewritten. Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "During the 1970s and early 1980s, many of the companies that are now well known in the area began to emerge" This sentence falls victim to the common misconception that being "well known" is the same as being notable. Why should we care if they are well known or not? Possible rephrasing "During the 1970s and early 1980s, several companies began to emerge that have since become prominent manufacturers of SGDs."
 * Done. Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm worried about the fact that the Toby Churchill and Dynavox statements are sourced to their respective company history pages. The authors have a very obvious conflict of interest regarding notability, and these sources alone should not be relied upon to determine which companies are mentioned in this article. I suggest replacing the references (currently refs 12 and 13) or backing them up with third-party material. If no such material can be found, the relevant statements should be deleted.
 * I'll have more of a look around - I should be able to find something - I've spent a reasonable amount of time depuffing the dynavox article anyway... Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Toby Churchill founded the company that bears his name in 1973" This phrasing implies that the reader will already be familiar with said company, but we cannot assume that that will always be true. Churchill Co.? Toby Churchill Incorporated? The Churchill Foundation? I have literally no idea, and Toby Churchill is no help either.
 * Reworded Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Toby Churchill founded ... cerebral palsy to communicate." Another extremely long sentence. This should be split between Churchill and Dynavox.
 * DoneFayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "a greatly increased number, range, and performance of commercially available communication devices" The meaning of "range" is somewhat ambiguous here. Does it mean price range? Or variety?
 * Changed to 'variety' Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "The first commercially available dynamic screen speech generating devices were developed in the 1990s, and synthesized speech in more languages became available." It's not clear how the second clause relates to the first in terms of time. Assuming that they were essentially simultaneous, here's a possible rewrite: "The first commercially available dynamic screen speech generating devices were developed in the 1990s. During this time, synthesized speech became available in more languages, such as Language X, Language Y, and Language Z."
 * I've dropped the second clause for clarity… Fayedizard (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "As of 2011, notable AAC users include Stephen Hawking, Roger Ebert and Tony Proudfoot." It is unclear to me why this sentence has a date attached to it. It implies that these three dudes are still alive as of 2011, but that's not true; Proudfoot died in 2010. Possible rephrasing: "Notable individuals who have used AAC devices include SH, RE, and TP. It might also make sense to prepend each name with the respective profession for which they were notable.
 * rephrasing sounds great - not sure about the predending part - it works for Hawking and Ebert, but it's difficult to refer to Proudfoot as an althete or as a former athete in this context… not sure really….? Fayedizard (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at this again, I think "AAC devices" should be changed to "SGDs". With that in mind, I don't see anything wrong with using "Notable individuals who have used SGDs include theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, film critic Roger Ebert, and former athlete Tony Proudfoot." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of History focuses too heavily on Hawking. I suggest including a single sentence for each of the gentlemen which simply states why they needed AAC, and possibly what device(s) they employed.
 * I've rewritten - ideally I'm trying to find a source that says "Yes, the only one of these you've heard is Hawking, yes it sounds very 1980s - but that's his choice, modern devices sound more natural…" Fayedizard (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think that there should be some information presented about Roger Ebert and Tony Proudfoot. If the article mentions these names, it should take the time to explain why they're relevant, and there's certainly enough space in the section to do it.
 * I find it somewhat odd that Input methods and Access methods are separate sections, as their content is very similar and highly inter-related. I find even more odd that Input methods is so much more detailed than Access methods, when the latter has so much more interesting things to elaborate upon. Explaining the difference between fixed and dynamic displays does not contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject as much as explaining how eye tracking and head pointers work. Do you agree?

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)