User talk:Kjb1818/Deafness in the Dominican Republic

Feedback will be here

This is where you should go to see my feedback on the article. Matthall.research (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf Empowerment/Leadership section

Looks like you've found a bunch of great organizations! Instead of just listing them, give the reader a sentence or two about their purpose. Doing that would move this section from a 1/3 to a 2/3. If you further report which are Deaf led (or not) and which are charity-driven (or not), that would move this to a 3/3. Matthall.research (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

Your description of the Santa Rosa Institute, on its own, is not enough to distinguish charity from empowerment. Although I ultimately agree with you, the main signals that give me that impression are the fact that the Institute's programming includes efforts aimed at changing attitudes in society, and helping hearing people become advocates for change.

Minor issues:

-Typo: "Deaf lead" should be "Deaf-led"

-DDW's website does make it clear that they're a Deaf-led organization

-Avoid using the term "hearing impaired" unless it's a direct quote or there's some other compelling justification

New score: 2.25/3 Matthall.research (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language Deprivation section

I urge you to dig deeper into the information available about that NIH-funded partnership between the University of Rochester, DDW, and ANSORDO: that is a GOLDMINE! The page you cited doesn't have much info, it's true, but there's a lot more out there. Try these, for starters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL8Vi1Yftxw&t=3s (I now see that you've cited this video, but there's more detail to be unpacked here.

https://www.nafsa.org/ie-magazine/2021/9/9/power-partnerships

Some of the content in this section would fit better under education.

Some of the references here are in strange places (including in the middle of words!): keep them at the ends of phrases and sentences.

Right now this would score between a 1 and 2. You'll need to convert this from bullet points to prose/paragraph, but that will require you to be more strategic in ordering the information. Matthall.research (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

Much improved! One thing puzzles me: "Until 20 years ago, the Dominican Republic didn't provide universal free education for deaf children." The source you cite in support of this claim was published in 1990, so how could it possibly provide information about what was happening in 2002?

New score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human/Civil Rights section

The Sign Language Act seems really important! Consider describing it in a sub-section: for example, when did it pass, and what does it do? Presumably there's more to it than guaranteeing access to interpreters for university students?

This is all really great information! You've done an excellent job of tracking it down and summarizing it: the main challenge for you now is organizing the information so that a reader can easily understand it. There's no one "Correct Way" to do this, but you will need to have *some* organizational strategy (topical, chronological, accomplishments & challenges, ...). Once this is organized more clearly, it has definite potential to score a 3.

Matthall.research (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

I see that you've made some of the changes that we discussed, but it's still pretty difficult to follow. For instance, you reference the state report before telling the reader anything about the CRPD and its legal status in the DR. There's also no consideration of how the DR is doing with respect to the World Federation of the Deaf's priority areas.

The section on each law remains difficult to follow. The reader needs you to provide more context to understand what these details mean.

New score: 1.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EHDI & EI section

The content on EHDI is great! (Sad, but great.) Just turn that into prose and you'll be at a 2. To get to a 3, add information about Early Intervention: does it exist? Are hearing aids or cochlear implants available? Are there opportunities for hearing families with DHH kids to learn a sign language? Matthall.research (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

The early hearing detection part is still stronger than the early intervention part, but the updates are appreciated. There still a little confusion about the availability of hearing technologies: you say that they're accessible for everyone, but then only available in larger cities.

New score: 2.25/3 Matthall.research (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Kes Jackson/Kaj307— I posted my peer review on its separate page Kaj307 (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary & Secondary Education section

Final graded feedback:

What's here is good: clear, well-organized, and well-cited. What would have made it exemplary would have been more description of the models of education: are students attending mainstream programs or schools for the deaf? Day programs or residential schools? What is the language of instruction? Is it direct or mediated instruction? Are there Deaf teachers?

Score: 2.25/3 Matthall.research (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education section

Final graded feedback:

Overall, quite nice! I especially appreciate the information from Diario Libre: excellent way to ensure that DHH people's perspectives and experience are being represented via a journalistic source. There's a minor error about the CASS program; DHH people are eligible for the funding to study whatever they want, and hearing/nondisabled people are eligible if they want to become interpreters. Finally, I don't know what wiki policy is about representing currency values, but I think it would be more clear to readers if you also included the equivalent value in USD dollars.

Score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Employment section

Final graded feedback:

Another very strong section! Some of the information here is fairly old (2000, or 2002), but it does seem consistent with the newer information. The only serious question I have is whether it's still true that there are no penalties for discrimination in employment. If the DR has ratified the CRPD, that should not be true, but it certainly could be.

Score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare section

Final graded feedback:

Two concerns here: First and most importantly, the first two sentences in this section are a *classic* case of paraphrasing plagiarism. It's not a direct quote, but it's very obvious that you simply changed a few words here and there. That is NOT an acceptable practice, and does not merit credit. I did not think I would need to explain this to Honors students.

Original source: "The healthcare system also lacks an adequate framework to accommodate people with disabilities, and few efforts exist to educate healthcare providers on the challenges that people with disabilities face."

Your article: "The healthcare system in the Dominican Republic lacks adequate framework to help people with disabilities. Very few efforts are available to educate healthcare providers on the hardships people with disabilities face."

Actual paraphrase (but don't use this): Neither healthcare providers nor healthcare systems in the DR are equipped to meet the needs of people with disabilities, including DHH people.

The second concern is that the final statement in this section belongs on the Talk page rather than in the body of the article.

Score: 0/3 Matthall.research (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]