Talk:Deafness in Iceland

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Deafness in Iceland 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

Iceland Low‑importance

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Good start!

I suspect that by the end of the semester, the lead section will look quite different than it does now: it's usually easiest to write that after you know what the rest of the article contains. Very nice job on your presentation yesterday: I recommend taking that info and putting into the Language Emergence section sooner rather than later while it's still fresh in your mind. Matthall.research (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language Emergence section

Nearly everything that you have in the lead would work better as part of the language emergence section: particularly the part about historical ties to Danish Sign Language. The part about Páll Pálsson will make more sense with that additional context. One exception might be the legal status of Icelandic Sign Language, which may work better in the human rights section (but it's not necessarily bad to have relevant info in more than one place).

Once you reorganize that information, this section would score no lower than "satisfactory" (2/3). If you want to work toward "exemplary" (3/3), I'd recommend adding information about the demographics of the signing community, the type of sign language (deaf community sign language or shared-signing community), and any more details you can find that describe differences between Danish Sign Language and Icelandic Sign Language.

One thing you've done *extremely* well is citing your sources: that's exactly what I want to see! The one exception is that you've included a citation to our course page: perhaps that was a copy/paste error? Matthall.research (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial graded feedback: Overall, really nice! Just a few things to clean up:

-A few claims still need citations (e.g. the one about the size of the community, and another one that's been flagged)

-"article 7 of the Act" comes out of nowhere: the reader has no idea what you're talking about there. I question whether this section belongs here at all?

Current score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

I appreciate the clarification about which Act you're referencing, but the additional citations have not need added. New score: 2.8/3 Matthall.research (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Organizations section

First off, well done for having something in here! Few other students have gotten to that point. This section, short though it is, does an excellent job of conveying important and factual information, and would score no lower than "satisfactory". To work toward "exemplary", you could include more information about the organization's specific initiatives/goals, and cast a wider net to identify other significant organizations that might impact the DHH people of Iceland. Matthall.research (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial graded feedback:

This is fantastic: no improvement needed.

Current score: 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human/Civil Rights section

What's here is good! I'd score this a solid 2/"satisfactory". If you'd like to move it toward 3/"exemplary", I'd like to see more details about how Iceland's CRPD report stacks up against what the WFDeaf (and especially the IAD) are advocating for. Matthall.research (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial graded feedback:

I appreciate the updates you've made here; I was going to ask for more details on reference 12, but I see that the source is in Icelandic, so that may not be feasible. I would still love to see more details about Iceland's country report(s) under the CRPD.

Current score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

I'm seeing some reorganization here, but not much new information. Also, the citation for the final sentence in this section is not well-chosen: it's from an article on Japan & Taiwan, and does not mention either Iceland or deafness.

Score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent paper of interest!

Hi, Nayana - I just came across this brand-new paper whose introduction contains a section that might come in very handy for you, both in terms of the content provided but also the references it links to. Check it out: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/411513

Matthall.research (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly looking through it, there seems to be a lot of info in there I didn't see anywhere else and a really helpful introduction. Like 13 foreign SL in Iceland is so cool! thanks for the link!! Nayanalize (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing Screening & Prevention section

Initial graded feedback:

First off, I'd recommend re-titling this Early Hearing Detection & Intervention, unless the phrase you've used is specifically used in Iceland.

The content here is good: well-sourced and clearly expressed. The only thing I'd like to see more information about is whether there are opportunities for families to learn ITM while their DHH children are young. I believe you mentioned information about that in class discussions, but I'm not seeing that here.

Current score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

No significant changes noted: score remains 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language Deprivation section

Initial graded feedback:

It doesn't hurt to have these two sentences, but none of the content here is specific to Iceland. I haven't read this paper myself but I know one of the authors, and I suspect that there might be some helpful info in here: https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/6/2/98

(And if not for language deprivation, this will *definitely* be helpful for the sections on education and language preservation/revitalization.)

Current score: 1/3

Matthall.research (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

There is no longer a language deprivation section; however, the previously-awarded point will remain. Matthall.research (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary & Secondary Education section

Final graded feedback:

-Some claims are missing citations (e.g. Brandur Jónsson section)

-Not much information on contemporary Deaf ed: for instance, how common is mainstreaming? Is the school for the Deaf in danger of closing? What's here is good - there's just a lot that's not here.

Score: 2/3

Matthall.research (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education

Final graded feedback:

The majority of this section concerns Iceland's higher ed system in general, without much DHH-specific content. The list of programs from Gyanberry.com does not in fact list 11 universities with an MA in Deaf studies: it lists 11 MA programs at a single university, none of which is in Deaf Studies. However, even if there were such a program, it would not say much about the accessibility of higher ed in Iceland, since those programs could be full of hearing people.

The last two sentences are the strongest part of the section, but are not very robust. Score: 1.5/3

Matthall.research (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Employment

Final graded feedback:

First part: nice job documenting the absence of information - that can be tricky to do in a wiki-appropriate way.

Second part: good content, but citation needed

Third part: This is the strongest part of the section.

Fourth part: This source is focused on people with intellectual disabilities, and does not say anything about deafness. Unlike some broader sources about all disability (such as the one from the 3rd section), we can't assume that's what contained in this source will apply to DHH people.

Score: 1.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language preservation & revitalization

Final graded feedback:

Overall, this section is excellent! I would have liked to see a little more specificity with respect to the actual primary threats to ITM (rather than a list of possible threats), and including ITM's EGIDS rating would have been nice. I don't actually understand the final sentence.

Score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf Studies at University of Iceland

I looked up University of Iceland's graduate programs and I don't see any mention of deaf studies. Does anyone know where that information came from? The citation just leads to a list of Icelandic schools. https://english.hi.is/graduate_list

I did find an article about someone doing their master's thesis in ISL, but that's not the same as a degree program in the language: https://english.hi.is/news/first_master_in_icelandic_sign_language SilkPyjamas (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]