User talk:Kec30/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Mayu Yamada (talk | contribs) →Peer's review: new section |
→Hearing Loss Peer Review -- Abbey Bucklin: new section |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Communication option |
Communication option |
||
How about referring consonant and vowel when you explain cued speech. |
How about referring consonant and vowel when you explain cued speech. |
||
== Hearing Loss Peer Review -- Abbey Bucklin == |
|||
I think that the edit to reorganize the treatment section to include language options, assistive devices, and other options is a great idea. Adding language options is important I think, because using assistive technology is not the only option for those with hearing loss. I also agree with the thought of maybe changing the word treatment, especially if you include language options, because these technologies and methods aren't necessarily "treatments," but more like resources(?) (maybe not the best word for it but I can't think of what exactly to call it). |
|||
It seems that all of the edits you propose to make are neutral and objective. Many of them are just subtle changes to the wording of statements that adds or clarifies important information. I think that many of the word choice changes you propose are important, and actually work to make the article more neutral. |
|||
I think that it is important that you add a little bit more to language deprivation in deaf children as you suggested. In the article now, it is merely mentioned in passing and the real magnitude of the issue is not expressed. However, make sure to do this in an unbiased way (maybe by stating facts from good sources). |
|||
Overall, I think everything looks great so far! This article already had a lot of information, but the edits that you suggested are definitely beneficial to the overall article. |
|||
Revision as of 02:13, 25 March 2019
Peer's review
Your editions did Great job! It seems neutral and used nice resources.
Some advices Lip reading - “contextual and must be filled in by brain processes. While the skill of lip reading may be useful to some people, it is not a reliable skill to most as there are many variables that could affect their ability to comprehend a person’s speech.” If you mention the reason why lip reading skill may be useful to some people, you can indicate how much lip reading needs severe condition for Deaf. You showed nice dates about lip reading and it shows how much lip reading is difficult!!!!
Communication option How about referring consonant and vowel when you explain cued speech.
Hearing Loss Peer Review -- Abbey Bucklin
I think that the edit to reorganize the treatment section to include language options, assistive devices, and other options is a great idea. Adding language options is important I think, because using assistive technology is not the only option for those with hearing loss. I also agree with the thought of maybe changing the word treatment, especially if you include language options, because these technologies and methods aren't necessarily "treatments," but more like resources(?) (maybe not the best word for it but I can't think of what exactly to call it).
It seems that all of the edits you propose to make are neutral and objective. Many of them are just subtle changes to the wording of statements that adds or clarifies important information. I think that many of the word choice changes you propose are important, and actually work to make the article more neutral.
I think that it is important that you add a little bit more to language deprivation in deaf children as you suggested. In the article now, it is merely mentioned in passing and the real magnitude of the issue is not expressed. However, make sure to do this in an unbiased way (maybe by stating facts from good sources).
Overall, I think everything looks great so far! This article already had a lot of information, but the edits that you suggested are definitely beneficial to the overall article.