Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 13:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is generally excellent. I have made minor grammatical and stylistic changes where appropriate. But there are still a few places where "jargony" terms are used that are not defined, and leave an uninitiated reader confused. Can you either define these or reword? Below are the examples I found, emphasis mine. ~~"Since the 1990s, there has been an increase in in-class and natural education techniques, as opposed to traditional pull-out methods"~~ ~~"the Amer-Ind code is based on American Indian Hand Talk" (Does the latter refer to Plains Indian Sign Language?)~~ ~~"PECS" is mentioned in the "Effect on speech" section. It was defined above, far up in the article, but many readers would benefit from PECS being redefined, as it is in the "Autism" section below.~~ ~~"In the bulbar form of ALS,"~~ ~~"writing or typing VOCA devices may be optimal"~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	It follows all MoS guidelines.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Many sources are not linked to online content, but could be. I did this for one reference, but others could use hyperlinks as well. (Try Googling the name of the journal article.) While I think this suggestion could improve the references, I don't believe it should be an obstacle to achieving GA status.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The citations are good and very reliable. I have access to Beukelman and Mirenda, the most-used source in the article, and have checked a dozen or so citations. Each time, the source backs up the claim, and in no case was there plagiarism.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems found.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article answers nearly any general question about AAC that I can imagine. I reviewed this article with a friend of mine who is taking a masters-level class on AAC, and she believes that this article is comprehensive.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays focused, without unnecessary tangents or interruptions.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	After discussing the article's scope with several people more knowledgeable than myself about the topic, I'm confident that there are no serious POV problems.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This is not an issue at this time.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are free content, and are tagged appropriately. I've checked them with TinEye, and none look suspect.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images and captions are all good.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a good article.

REFS :) Just logged in to find that all the references are now beutifully organised! Thank you so much Quadell! :) Failedwizard (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to do it! – Quadell ^(talk) 20:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke with some other reviewers, and the consensus is that the lead, while good, still leaves out too much of the article. If you could add one more paragraph summarizing some of the other sections (in the TOC), I think that'll do it. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed! Well done, and congratulations! – Quadell ^(talk) 19:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop! Thank you so much for all your help - I think you've now edited the article more than I have. I really hope to be working with you in the future again - my two little projects from now are to generate a composite image for this site and to sort out the references in Speech_generating_device in preperation for a big extension there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Failedwizard (talk • contribs) 07:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]