Talk:Deafness in Portugal

Deaf Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Deafness in Portugal 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

Untitled

Hmm - I'm not seeing anything in your sandbox draft, which is concerning. By the beginning of class on Tuesday, you'll need to have at least an outline with associated references. Matthall.research (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a difference a week makes! I'm sure it was no fun to have to re-write all of that content, but it looks very nice. I do have a number of ideas for improvement but none of them are major concerns. The most consistent issue I see is the presence of evaluative (i.e. non-factual) statements, typically coupled with a lack of resources. Fortunately, you can solve both of these problems by providing citations to places where DHH community members (or others) have expressed their concerns. For example, instead of saying "Oralism is bad.", you could say, "The Portuguese Association of the Deaf has expressed strong opposition to oral education [1]."

The overall organization is clear enough; it's always hard to avoid redundancy when trying to provide historical background. You might consider establishing a cutoff for the "history" section (e.g. prior to the 21st century), and move all older content into that section. Then you could keep the other sections focused on more contemporary issues.

The section on medical treatment is the weakest one at present; right now, it focuses mainly on *identification* (not treatment), and the bit about the signing gloves seems out of place.

I look forward to discussing more soon! Matthall.research (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]