Talk:Deafness in the Windward Islands

Deaf Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deaf-related and Deaf culture. For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.DeafWikipedia:WikiProject DeafTemplate:WikiProject Deafdeaf articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Deafness in the Windward Islands is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Language Emergence section

No content provided as of 9/20/22. Would score 0/3. Matthall.research (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial graded feedback:

I'm conflicted about the paragraph describing spoken language emergence. It's (mostly) good content, but you haven't shown how it's relevant to DHH people's experiences. The link that you draw at the end of the paragraph implies that the the diverse spoken languages caused there to be diverse sign languages... It's possible that there is a connection there, but you would need to provide more evidence of one. If you can do so, then this paragraph should stay (but might be better as one that follows the paragraph on sign language emergence?). If not, the article might be better with this paragraph removed.

The paragraph on sign language emergence is where I'd recommend concentrating your efforts. I would LOVE to see a list of the indigenous sign languages of the Windward Isles! I'm not sure if that's possible. At the very least, the first sentence in the paragraph needs a citation. It would also be useful to have a list of the imported sign languages (e.g. ASL and any others). Alternatively (or in addition), you might list each island and state which language(s) are used there. Right now the information is fairly generic, except for TTSL. All of this information should be available in Parks (2011).

Current score: 1.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

WOW! So, so much better. There are still a handful of shortcomings in the writing and citations, but in general this is a very strong section! New score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Organizations section

TTAHI is a great organization to include: good find! The Caribbean Christian Center for the Deaf appears to be focused on Jamaica, which is not part of the Windward Islands. I know that you had a hard time searching for relevant organizations, but don't forget to make sure of resources that you've already found! For example, your Getting Started assignment included references to the Starkey Foundation, SIL, The Joshua Project, Caribbean Deaf News, and the National Emergency Management Organization: and that was just on St. Lucia! In addition, Parks & Williams (2011) also includes valuable information about significant organizations across the region. In general, I always recommend working smarter, not harder - so I think your best bet moving forward is to spend more time with the resources you already have. Matthall.research (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you've been digging deeper into Parks & Williams (2011): great! Now that you've have all this great information, the next step is to organize it so that it's easy for readers to grasp. Here, I recommend listing each island (that you have information about) as a sub-header, and then listing each organization as its own bullet underneath.

I was a little confused about TTAHI: are you saying that it doesn't exist anymore? Or that it DOES exist but many people just don't know about it?

I see that someone has added an "advertisement" flag to your article: I'm not concerned about that, so I don't think you need to be either.

In addition to this by-island organizational strategy, you might also want to list some trans-national organizations, like SIL and the Joshua Project. It seems like the Barbados Association for the Blind and Deaf might also be a trans-national organization?

Current score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

Also markedly improved here! The reorganization is mostly successful, although there's some confusion at the switch from organizing by island to organizing by source-of-information (SIL), and then back to by island (Barbados). The Joshua Project is also discussed twice, and there are some missing citations. Still, a clear improvement over the first submission. New score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review - Erin Bruni

Wow! You have had so much to research, and you found so much great information, so props to you! Just a logistical thing - I would recommend breaking up your Significant Organizations section up by organization, sort of like what you did in the Language Emergence section where you differentiated the sign language emergence from spoken language. I think that might make it easier to read and follow along. Additionally in that section, is The Joshua Project a charity? I thought it was but I could be wrong. If it is, I would recommend differentiating that it is a charity, versus TTAHI, which sounds like empowerment. Also, are there any events, legislations, experiences of deaf people that have happened in the past that might show how it compares to the better conditions of today? Although, you also might be able to add more about the social climate of deaf people and hearing people in general, if you can. Overall, what you have is a GREAT start, and I'm excited to see what else you find! Tuk82837 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Rights section

Initial graded feedback:

This section is fairly superficial, but I can understand why! Digging into the country reports for each region would definitely be an unreasonable amount of work. Still, if you wanted to increase the score of this section, you would be welcome to dive deeper into even just one country's report. Another way to add more substance here would be to go back through Parks & Williams (2011) and look specifically for any statements they make about what kinds of legal protections are(n't) available to DHH people here, encounters with law enforcement/criminal justice systems, discrimination in the workplace, etc.

At minimum, please reorganize the information here into a list format, to make it easier to read.

Current score: 1.75/2 Matthall.research (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Typo: that should say 1.75/3) Matthall.research (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

-In the intro paragraph in this section, you need to cite which country's initial report it is that you're talking about. The quote also needs a citation!

-In the previous paragraph, Trinidad & Tobago's ratification date is given as 2015, but here it says 2006.

-The information about Dominica is useful, but needs better citation.

New score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early Hearing Detection & Intervention section

Initial graded feedback:

The first paragraph in this section contains quite a wide-ranging set of statements! Please stay focused on newborn hearing screening, referral for diagnostic testing, and early intervention. The point about the high rates of acquired hearing loss is an important one, but that isn't a reason for the absence of hearing screening. It just means that a UNHS program wouldn't be enough: you would also want to screen later on to catch those kids who were born hearing but then became DHH.

The second paragraph too mostly contains information that would fit better in the Language Deprivation section or in the Primary & Secondary Education section. The part about hearing technology is the most on-topic sentence here, but unfortunately my interview with Ian would not meet Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source.

Here's what I would recommend for structuring this section:

Paragraph 1: Early hearing detection.

Explain what early hearing screening is. Use Neumann (2020) to describe the presence/absence of newborn hearing screening programs in the Windward Islands.

Paragraph 2: Early intervention.

Describe what reliable sources say about whether DHH children in the Windward Islands have access to technologies like hearing aids and cochlear implants prior to school entry. Describe what reliable sources say about whether DHH children in the Windward Islands have access to sign languages prior to school entry.

Current score: 1.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

Better here too, albeit with some issues remaining:

-The section header structure is off here; the EHDI/EI section should have the same level header as Civil Rights and Language Deprivation.

-The middle of the first paragraph here belongs in Primary & Secondary Ed instead of here.

-In the early intervention section, I would have liked to see discussion of the (un)availability of sign language services alongside hearing technologies.

New score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language Deprivation section

Initial graded feedback:

Excellent!! Documenting the absence of information in a wiki-appropriate way can be challenging, but you've provided a shining example here of how to do it. Well done! The only recommendation for improvement is that you've used a quotation without providing a citation, and you've attributed the quote to the source rather than the author. Fix those issues and you'll be at a 3/3. (Let me know if you have questions about what I mean.)

Current score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary & Secondary Education

I appreciate the clear structure and focus here. There are occasional concerns about claims that need citations, significant typos ("dead" instead of "deaf"), and not much information about mainstream/inclusive education. But what's here is generally good. Score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education

-There's a crucial "do not" missing in the 2nd sentence!

-Otherwise good work here.

Score: 2.25/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Employment

This section is outstanding! Comprehensive, clearly organized, well-cited: everything I want to see! Great work. 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare

This is another good section; it's simply not as thorough or impressive as the previous. The wiki user community has flagged a number of claims as needed citations, but in some cases, citations are already available. (In others, I concur that they are missing.)

Score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language preservation & revitalization

-Typo: "cannon" should be "cannot"

-The section on TTSL is beautiful! I would love to know what the actual threats are.

-St. Vincent: from this section, it's unclear if you're saying that the indigenous sign language there already died out, or if there was no indigenous language, and ASL is doing just fine?

-The section on Grenada is much more clear

Score: 2.25/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]