Talk:Deafness in Tunisia

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.

Tunisia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tunisia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Tunisia. For more information, visit the project page.TunisiaWikipedia:WikiProject TunisiaTemplate:WikiProject TunisiaTunisia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Deafness in Tunisia 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

Start with sources: let the content follow

Hi, Gopiga - I know it's still early, but I *strongly* recommend that you start by entering your sources. Any statement you make on wikipedia needs to be supported by a reliable source. Matthall.research (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language Emergence section

The content here is good, but still needs citations. Your in-class presentation seemed to have much more information that is present in your article, as of 9/20/22. Matthall.research (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Would currently score between 1 and 2 out of 3.) Matthall.research (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved! Current score: 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Organizations section

No information provided as on 9/26/22. Would score 0/3. Matthall.research (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial graded feedback:

Very nice overall! My main question is whether AVST is a Deaf-led organization. From the description, it sounds like it could go empowerment or charity: hard to know which! If you've also struggled to determine this, that might be worth pointing out.

-You mention several other organizations in passing: might these each merit a sentence?

Current score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

No significant changes noted, score remains 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human/Civil Rights section

I trust that this is still a work in progress! I tried to learn more about the Deaf people in Nabuel by consulting the reference you cited, but I didn't see any such information on that page: it was all about Nabuel, but nothing about deafness. Where did you learn about there being a Deaf community there? *That's* the source that you should cite. It may be that this information could belong in a different section of the article, especially if there is a different sign language in use here. For the section on Human/Civil rights, I would love to see information about the status of the CRPD in Tunisia, legal recognition of any sign languages, information about how DHH people are treated in the criminal justice system, etc. (In its present state, this section would score no higher than a "1", but I'm sure it's not in its finished state.) Matthall.research (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

I don't see this section in the published article. Matthall.research (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Great start! You might want to continue to expand it a bit as the main article's body grows. Matthall.research (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language Deprivation section

Initial graded feedback:

-I won't make you change this, because you're citing a source accurately, but it's a pet peeve of mine. Deafness does not, in and of itself, have a negative impact on communication. The absence of accessible language input in the environment is the problem.

-Surely the 9.37% with hearing loss is based on only those who *were referred* based on the result of the screening test, right? Not 9.37% of those who *were screened*... please check.

-Based on the content you have here, I recommend submitting this as the Early Hearing Detection & Early Intervention section. I'll score it as if you had submitted it that way (the score will be higher).

-Continuing that comment, I would want to see more information about early intervention opportunities (e.g. hearing technologies, sign language learning opportunities) or their absence.

Current score: 2.25/3 Matthall.research (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early Hearing Detection & Intervention section

Final graded feedback:

In the first submission, the content I accepted in this section was largely under language deprivation. In this reorganized version, the content on early hearing detection is strong, but nothing is said on the early intervention side beyond "referred to ENT specialists for proper management and care". ENTs are only qualified to provide medical treatment; they're not trained in child development, and therefore do not participate in early intervention. The reader is left without knowing what options are available in terms of both hearing technologies (hearing aids, cochlear implants) and support for early acquisition of sign language.

Score: 1.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language Deprivation

Final graded feedback:

As we discussed recently, language deprivation and illiteracy are dissociable: you can be language-deprived and still eventually acquire functional literacy, and you can also NOT be language deprived while being completely illiterate. In Tunisia, I do think you're right that both are occurring and both are connected, but evidence of illiteracy does not itself constitute evidence of language deprivation. For that, a stronger evidence basis would be the absence of early intervention programs, which was left undiscussed.

Score: 1/3 Matthall.research (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary & Secondary Education

Final graded feedback:

This section is FANTASTIC!!! Extremely thorough, well-cited, neutral point of view - everything I could possibly ask for. Well done!

Score: 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education

Final graded feedback:

No concerns here - just not as exceptional as the preceding!

Score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Employment

Final graded feedback:

Solid work here, particularly in pointing out how disability quota can end up disadvantaging DHH people. Would have been nice to have more specifics about employment rates and types.

Score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare

Final graded feedback:

Very nice on the whole - I love that you included language deprivation, patient-provided communication, and public health systems! My only recommendation for improvement would be that many of your references in the first part of the section are quite generic; there is literature that discusses all of these issues with respect to DHH people specifically.

Score: 2.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language preservation & revitalization

Final graded feedback:

Very nice description. Though formally classed as stable, it would have been extra nice to know more about what the primary threats might be: hearing technology? another sign language? shrinking DHH population?

Score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]