Talk:Deafness in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Language Emergence section

Looks like there is a very interesting linguistic situation going on here! First and foremost, you need to provide citations for *every* claim you make in the article. I dare you to cite too much. Second, don't use wikipedia articles as your sources! You can (and should!) link to other articles that are relevant, and you can use those articles to find other reliable sources. *Those* are what you should be citing.

In terms of content, we'll want to know more about LSF, LSAF, and Congolese Sign Language. Are they Deaf Community Sign Languages or Shared-Signing communities? How did they come into being? How are they different? Right now, this section gives the impression that what sign language you use is determined by what spoken language is used in the area... there may well be a correlation there, but you shouldn't assume (or imply) causation.

When you say "Sign Language is now the 5th official language of the country," the reader needs to know which specific sign language you're talking about.

Right now, this section would score somewhere between a 1 and 2 out of 3. Matthall.research (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is all super helpful. Noted and working on it! Tuk82837 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial graded feedback:

-Lead by naming the sign languages, then tell us more about each one: for example, what category of sign language it is and how it got there. Then identify which one is officially recognized, and list the other official (spoken) languages there.

-There is an urgent need for more citations in this section: it's disappointing to see no improvement here from the previous feedback. Every claim needs a citation.

Current score: 1/3, which great potential for improvement once citations are added and content reorganized. Matthall.research (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

Much, much better! Still, much of the information here is about the schools rather than about the sign languages. I wish you had discussed how LSAF and CSL came into being, and how they are used. If you had trouble finding this information, I wish you would have asked me for help!

New score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Organizations section

You're one of the only students who has even started to work on this section, so well done there. I'll check back later in hopes of seeing more specific details about the names of the organizations, what they do, etc. Matthall.research (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked back but didn't see any further development in this section. I would like to see the names of these organizations, a description of their general mission, a description of their work in the DRC, and (if possible) an indication of whether they are Deaf-led or not. Matthall.research (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added to it today, but I am still missing some answers to your questions, so I'll make sure to add more to this section soon. Thanks! Tuk82837 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial graded feedback:

-Again, the primary need here is citations! Do you need help learning how to use the citation function? I can't help you if I don't know what help you need.

-Lead with your best information: here, that's the fact(?) that the DRC is a WFDeaf member, which implies the existence of a Deaf-led organization. If you've identified the name of that organization, please provide it. If you haven't been able to identify it, say so. Right now, the reader is left to wonder whether that's the Deaf People's Association, and it's highly ambiguous. I would include Gallaudet's list as an "external resource".

Current score: 1/3 (mainly because of the citations) Matthall.research (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

Wonderful! This is exactly what I want to see! New score: 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human/Civil Rights section

The anecdote you have here is good, but there must be more to say! Did you find documents from the DRC's report on the CRPD? Right now this would score as "needs improvement": the primary need is just more content. Matthall.research (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My previous feedback still stands! Current score: 1/3. Matthall.research (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final graded feedback:

There's been a good deal of improvement here! The level of detail is a bit uneven, in that you include specifics about some things that aren't that important, while leaving other important matters unmentioned or vague. Including the film in this section might be appropriate, but you would need to explain how it's relevant to human rights.

New score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early Hearing Detection & Innovation

All of this content is good, but none of it is about early hearing detection & intervention! Instead, this reads like an extension to the "Significant Organizations" section. I'll give you a bonus point for this additionally-excellent information, but you haven't shown any understanding of newborn hearing screening or early intervention systems.

Score: 0/3 for EHDI, 1/3 for Additional Topic. Matthall.research (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary & Secondary Education

I'm very impressed by how much you were able to find about these schools! The thoroughness here compensates for the lack of information about the experiences of DHH students in mainstream settings (if that even occurs). Score: 3/3 Matthall.research (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Employment

Pretty good here, but there are a few mistakes that I wish we could have discussed prior to submission:

-The existence of schools for the deaf and interpreters does not justify the inference that DHH people have the opportunity to become teachers or interpreters. I suspect that nearly all individuals in those professions are actually hearing.

-The way you describe "French-based" websites and "African names" suggests a lack of either understanding or thoughtfulness with respect to the DRC's colonial history. I particularly do not appreciate the idea of "African names", as if they belong to the entire continent (i.e. not "Congolese names"), and as if people in France could not have such names.

-I enjoyed learning about the KFF, but the section doesn't specify whether their services extend to DHH people.

Score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare

I'm struggling a bit with how to grade this section. The content on detainment is very important, but not exactly DHH-specific. I was waiting for you to make a DHH-specific connection in the 2nd paragraph, which you eventually did, but the evidence you cited does not bear that connection out. It seems that the primary concerns of DHH people in sub-Saharan Africa are about issues other than detainment. I wish you had given more attention to those issues.

Score: 1.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]