User talk:Laurenmacch/Deafness In Haiti

Language Emergence section

Good start, Lauren! Your main target for improvement here is providing citations to support every claim that you make. None of this is information that you knew before starting this course, so you must have gotten it from somewhere! I note that you do cite two sources, but every single claim in the article needs a citation, even if you're citing the same source(s) over and over and over. The reader needs to know where the information comes from.

Also, when you cite, you need to use the built-in citation function in Wikipedia. If you need help with that, review the training module in the Wiki Dashboard, or come to office hours.

As of 9/20/22, this section would score between 1-2 of 3. Matthall.research (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial graded feedback:

I'm delighted to see the references here: good work! My only recommendations for improvement are for creating more cross links to other wiki articles. Current score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

No changes noted; score remains 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Organizations section

You've found a lot of great information here - very nice! You still aren't using Wikipedia's citation function, so that's a definitely a skill to work on this week. Content-wise, it looks pretty good. I saw a typo or two, and you included some non-factual language in discussing the impact of OtGM, so do be careful on those fronts. From a readability perspective, I think this section would benefit from being formatted as a list, where each organization gets its own entry. For each one, I would encourage you to include a statement about whether it is Deaf-led, hearing-led, or unclear (with a citation for how you know). Right now, this would score just a little under 2/3, primarily because of the citation issue. If you fix the citations, reorganize, and add a little more about the organizations, you'll be well on your way to a 3/3! Matthall.research (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial graded feedback:

So much better!! This is great. 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human/Civil Rights section

I really appreciate how you've included information from the CRPD Report as well as information about what's actually happening on the ground. As noted previously, you'll still need to learn how to use the citation function; inserting the image (rather than linking to it) would also be a good idea, as long as copyright allows. It also looks like you're only citing information from the List of Issues: it would also be useful to know what Haiti has said in its report, and how that stacks up against what Deaf Haitians (and the WFDeaf) would like to see. In addition, it would help to have more info about the chronology of all this, including signing onto the CRPD, passing the Inclusion act, when the murders happened, etc. In fact, organizing this section chronologically might make a lot of sense. Similar to the previous section, this one would currently score a little under 2, but it won't take much to bring it higher. Matthall.research (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial graded feedback:

This is also MUCH improved! My main feedback is that there's a really jarring juxtaposition between what Haiti says it's done in the CRPD report and the actual reality on the ground. This seems significant enough to me that I would recommend highlighting it by sub-headers, to call attention to legal provisions vs. everyday realities (or words to that effect).

Please also add the dates for when Haiti ratified the CRPD & Optional Protocol, and when they submitted their most recent report.

Current score: 2.25/3 Matthall.research (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial graded feedback:

This is OUTSTANDING! Truly an exemplary (though depressing) section.

Score: 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Wiki Dashboard told me to tell you when I've peer-reviewed, so just letting you know I've peer-reviewed! Overall, nice job! I enjoyed learning about DHH people in Haiti :) Pamgorilla (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early Hearing Detection & Intervention

Final graded feedback:

Good job documenting the absence of newborn hearing screening programs in Haiti. The 2nd half of the section puzzles me; the source you cite doesn't have any information about Haiti at all, so I can't fact-check your claims. That's a shame, because if they are indeed factual, this section would score at least a full point higher.

Score: 1.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interlude: About Parks (2018)

I don't know why I didn't notice this before, but a VERY substantial portion of the information in your article cites Parks (2018) as its source, but as noted above, that source is entirely devoid of information about Haiti. I suspect that you cited the wrong reference, which is an understandable mistake. Unfortunately, since that source plays such a key role in the entire article, that one error threatens the integrity of all of your work! I cannot give high scores to an article where readers cannot fact-check the information. Matthall.research (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language Deprivation section

(concerns about Parks (2018) may effect this score)

Final graded feedback:

If the sources check out, this section would be satisfactory: 2/3. Matthall.research (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary & Secondary Education

(concerns about Parks (2018) may effect this score)

Final graded feedback:

If the sources check out, this section would score well (2.5/3)! The key info that would prevent it from being a 3/3 is the absence of information about the language of instruction at these schools. Matthall.research (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Employment

(concerns about Parks (2018) may effect this score)

Final graded feedback:

It's good to see that Parks (2018) is not the *only* source cited here, although it still plays a very significant role. One way to improve this section would be to remind the reader about Haiti's legal obligations under the CRPD (and any relevant domestic legislation). Otherwise this would score 2.75. Matthall.research (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare

Final graded feedback:

I'm pleased to see that the nearly all of the sources cited here substantiate the claims you make! Parks et al. (2018) is still a question mark, but plays a more peripheral role here. Very good work. Score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language preservation & revitalization

(concerns about Parks (2018) may effect this score)

Final graded feedback:

This too is an excellent section, with the only real concern being its reliance on Parks (2018)! If not for that, it would score 3/3. Matthall.research (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]