Talk:Deafness in Poland

Keep it up!

Hi, Tori - great to see that this page is up and running! This is where you should continue to develop your article, and I'll continue to provide feedback. Don't worry about the Lead section for now: that will probably be the last thing you write. Do add sub-sections for the major topics. For the Language Emergence section, be careful to avoid making it sound like one person "founded" the language: as we discussed, that's not how language acquisition works! Also, did you notice that your source cites a wiki article as its source? I think you'll be able to do better. Matthall.research (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the delay but I finally found out where the feedback/ talk page is located today in class with you! And I did sort of a reorganization if you call it to my article layout. I am also constantly finding new sources as I write in new sections if that is fine. And thank you for pointing out my use of language acquisition! Sometimes I write down my thoughts as they come to me and forget to go back and fix it! Toriracz (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Article Organization

Right now you have Language Emergence at the highest level of organization in your article. Instead, the Lead should be at the highest level (but you can write it last). Language Emergence is one of the 6 to 10 sections that you'll be writing over the course of the semester. Matthall.research (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The article organization looks great now - good work! Matthall.research (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Human/Civil Rights section

When writing for Wikipedia, it's best to stick just to the facts: this is different from how you might write in an essay, where the paragraphs need more connective prose. In this case, everything that comes before "In article nine" is background information that -though accurate- is not needed in this context. Rather than explaining what the CRPD is, just insert a link to its wiki entry. Where the reader does need a little more help is in understanding what Poland is doing (as evidenced in Articles 9, 21, and 24) versus what the World Federation of the Deaf *wants* to see Poland doing. (You could also include any information you find about what SLATO-YOUTH wants to see in terms of their civil/human rights!) Relying only on Poland's report risks painting a rosier picture than is actually true: remember that they're trying to make themselves look as good as possible!

Right now, this section would score somewhere between "needs improvement" and "satisfactory". The highest-priority area for improvement will be adding additional content that goes beyond Poland's CRPD report. (A less-urgent but still important improvement will be to clean up the citation for the report.) Matthall.research (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Initial graded feedback:

Thanks for responding to the above feedback! The reader still needs a little more information to understand what's in the bullet points. For example, the missing information includes (a) the fact that the bullets are drawn from Poland's (initial?) country report that was submitted to the UN in response to the CRPD demands, and (b) the articles that you've focused on were chosen based on the World Federation of the Deaf's priority areas.

-The statement about high rates of sexual violence needs a citation

-The information about SALTO-YOUTH does not belong in this section

-The concluding sentence is more essay like, but it raises an important point: there is a contrast between the rosy picture that we get from Poland's country report and the information that follows. Although you should resist the urge to connect the dots (which would be good in an essay but not in a wiki article), you *can* help the reader understand the disconnect through the use of section headings. For example, one heading might be "Protections in the law" with the other is "Experiences of DHH people in Poland". That would help readers notice the contrast between the two without you having to say anything interpretive: you're structuring the section so that the facts can speak for themselves. Does that make sense?

Current score: 1.75/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Informal feedback:

The link in the CRPD citation takes the reader to the generic database; it should take them directly to the report.

The rest of the changes are much better! This would now score no lower than a 2. To move it toward a 3, integrate some of the observations that you've found from other sources, such the Deaf Learning Project, the 4 Step Program, etc: that would provide some importance counterbalance, so that the narrative we get does not come only from Poland's gov't, but is also informed by actual DHH people's experiences. Matthall.research (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

EHDI section

In the section title, please change "Prevention" to "Intervention": as far as I'm aware, none of the services here are attempting to prevent hearing loss; they're focused on what to do about it.

The organization here is a bit jumbled, bouncing between high-level and detailed information in a way that can be tough to follow.

There are some claims that are unaccompanied by citations, especially toward the end of the section. If all the information is coming from the same source, you can (and must!) cite that source multiple times.

Were you able to find anything about opportunities for young children and their families to learn PJM prior to school entry?

Overall, this section would score between 1 and 2, with the main targets for improvement being noted above. Matthall.research (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Initial graded feedback:

-There has been some improvement here, but there's room for more. The writing is still difficult to follow. For example, you say that newborn hearing screening is not available in all areas of Poland, but then say that 98% of newborns are screened. Although it is possible that those are both true, their arrangement is confusing. It would be much clearer to say something like, "Poland currently screens 98% of newborns for hearing; most of those who are not screened live in remote areas where medical facilities are scarce", or something to that effect.

-I don't understand the sentence about schools: please either edit or remove.

-Numerous claims require citations.

-Several sentences are repeated.

-I have difficulty believing that 7% to 17.% of children in Poland have hearing disorders. Might this refer to the percent of children identified as DHH out of *those who are referred for testing based on the screening result* (as opposed to out of the general population)?

-Please avoid using the term "fail" with respect to hearing screening. Instead, say "are referred for follow-up".

-The last sentence would fit better in the language deprivation section.

Current score: 1.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Informal feedback:

In general, much improved! I followed up on the claim that 7-17.5% of the general population has a hearing loss. I see that that is indeed what the source you cite is saying; however, they are not the original source. If you look at that study, they are citing *another* source. And in *that* original source, that is the percentage of children who are referred for follow-up: *not* the percent who are actually found to deaf or hard-of-hearing. Please do update that and cite the *original* source: this is a significant error, even though it's not your fault!

I would like to see more detail on the intervention side: right now, you have a sentence that lists "many options", but then then only option that gets mentioned is cochlear implants. This is your best opportunity to strengthen the section further. Right now, it would be somewhere around a 2. Matthall.research (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Final graded feedback:

There's a LOT of paraphrasing plagiarism going on here, which is especially troubling since I already alerted you to it elsewhere in the article! That's a serious failure of both epistemic humility and scholarly inquiry, and I can't aware credit to sections with significant plagiarism. New score: 0/3. Matthall.research (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I've listed the section at Wikipedia:Copyright problems given the above comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Language Emergence section

Initial graded feedback:

A lot of the information in this section would fit better in other sections (e.g. Deaf-led organizations and Education). With respect to language emergence, the question is how PJM came into being. The reader is left in the dark about all this. Who is Piotr Gąsowski? Was he already using a sign language when Jakub met him? Or was it a situation more like Nicaragua, where the establishment of a school drew a bunch of homesigners together who, over the next several years, organically evolved a new sign language, now known as PJM? If that's NOT how it happened, did Jakub and/or Piotr import some other pre-existing sign language into Poland? If so, which one?

Current score: 1/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Informal feedback: The 1st sentence still makes it sound like the language was created by a single individual. Even worse, the source you cite never mentions Falkowski or sign language at all! I don't think I checked this last time. Given what I've seen in the newest sections that you've added, I'm growing increasingly concerned that many of the citations throughout the article are in serious need of fact-checking. More generally, I am utterly perplexed about why you would cite a source that the information didn't come from. You either completely made this up, or you learned it somewhere. Why would you not cite the source that you learned it from!? I am sincerely confused.

2nd sentence: add the acronym PJM, which you can then use throughout the article, if you want. (It's ok to keep it as Polish Sign Language, but do *not* abbreviate that to PSL.)

The rest of the narrative is improved, but you should still make it clearer that Falkowski founded the *school*, which allowed the language to develop. Tell us whether PJM has the characteristics of a deaf community sign language or a shared-signing community. Matthall.research (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Final graded feedback:

It's very reassuring to see these improvements! The section is now satisfactory (score: 2/3). The main limitation is that the main source that you rely on is not especially strong, and in fact cites wikipedia as the sources for ITS information, which makes this all circular. Matthall.research (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Deaf-led organizations section

Initial graded feedback:

-The first sentence needs a citation.

-The next several sentences are not the find of factual information that belongs on wikipedia. They would be fine if you were writing an essay, but this is an encyclopedia article. Stick to the descriptive facts. Resist the temptation to contextualize and interpret. The last sentence in the paragraph is also essay-like and should be cut.

-Start with the Polish Association of the Deaf: they are the most important Deaf-led organization in Poland.

-SALTO and SALTO-YOUTH (not SLATO - fix the typos) are good to include, but deafness is not their main focus: they just happen to have one project in partnership with the Polish Association of the Deaf. By all means describe that project! Just be careful not to portray them as an organization that is consistently focused on deafness.

Current score: 1.75/3

Matthall.research (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Informal feedback:

PAD section: excellent!

PDSA: also great! Do be careful about the term "hearing-impaired" - you can use that if that's how they describe themselves, but otherwise use "deaf or hard of hearing".

SALTO-Youth: much improved! However, I'm now concerned that you might be drawing a lot of these sentences from the original sources (paraphrasing plagiarism) rather than actually summarizing the content in your own words. Fortunately, correcting that should also take care of the concern about promotional language that some wiki user expressed. Matthall.research (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Final graded feedback:

Good work here, although I'm still a bit uncertain about the citation you've provided: the article has a lot more details than are available at the links you've provided. New score: 2.25/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Language Deprivation section

Initial graded feedback:

-The first paragraph reads as through you're taking notes-to-self; it needs rewriting before it's ready to be included in an article. I'm also not quite sure what you're saying here. Happy to talk about it!

-In the Population scale section, there's another instance of confusingly-presented information. Do you intend to say something like, "Although the presence of universal newborn hearing screening in Poland mitigates the extent of language deprivation, the overall rate is still quite high."? If so, you will need to provide a better reference than the article you currently cite, which has nothing at all to do with Poland (except for a user's comment that mentions Polish as an analogy). If such a reference is not available, you can still make the point that if UNHS isn't backed up by effective intervention strategies, the risk of language deprivation remains high.

-Personally, I 100% agree with everything you wrote in the Prevention paragraph. However, you need to provide reliable references in support of these claims. Here again, the sentences read more like notes-to-self than like encyclopedia entries.

Current score: 1.25/3

Matthall.research (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Informal feedback:

1st sentence: address the "by whom" flag by providing a citation! The recommended readings on Canvas would be a good place to start.

2nd sentence: That source is from the US, but your reader will assume it's describing Poland. Fix or remove.

3rd sentence (fragment): The source you've cited has nothing to do with the claim that you're using it to support. This is becoming a pattern. Very concerning.

4th sentence: same problem

5th sentence: citation needed

6th sentence: same problem as in 3 & 4. In addition, it is not hearing loss itself that impacts social skills and language acquisition: it is the absence of accessible linguistic input. Once again, using the recommended readings will be a good way to substantiate these claims.

7th sentence: I recommend cutting the whole sentence. It's not clear, and you don't have good evidence for it.

Population Scale: The general point here is a good one, but unfortunately the content of the sentences is a bit far removed from the actual content of the source. It requires a lot of inferencing to connect those dots, and that's not how wiki articles are supposed to work. It would be better to say something like, "Population-level data about DHH children's language outcomes in Poland are unavailable", and then add a section to the Talk page about the strategies that you used in an effort to find this information.

Prevention:

1st sentence: The source that you cite here is such a wonderful, rich, treasure-trove of information! For instance, it contains information that you could use to strengthen the language emergence section. It also has a LOT to say about the consequences of language deprivation for DHH people's eventual proficiency in PJM. You currently aren't discussing any of that. Instead, you're using this article to support a claim about early intervention programs, whereas I'm not seeing anywhere that the article discusses early intervention programs. Am I missing it?

2nd & 3rd sentence: That evidence is coming from a US-based study. Stick to the info you can find in the previous source. Matthall.research (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Final graded feedback:

Citing Niparko et al. (2010) in support of your 1st sentence is a bold move... You're correct that their *data* are consistent with your claim, but the authors themselves don't discuss it in those terms. Kushalnagar et al. (2010) is an excellent choice. However, both of these studies are still from the US, whereas your reader is assuming that you're talking about Poland. This is misleading. The third sentence does provide evidence from Poland, but it has nothing to do with the claim: in fact, the data in this study come only from Deaf children who are born to Deaf parents.

It's ok that you've removed the Prevention section, but I'm disappointed that you haven't made better use of the source that you cited in the last version I saw.

New score: 1.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Primary & Secondary Education section

Informal/ungraded feedback:

-Earlier you said that deaf education began in 1941! Which is it!?

-The stats you cite: are those for the general population, or for DHH students? The reader needs to know.

-Please provide more information about the nature of the educational options available today. Make every effort to include the Major topics (see the lecture slides); information about the Additional topics is welcome, but won't compensate for the lack of information about the Major topics.

Matthall.research (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

More informal feedback:

4th sentence: unclear whether this is true of Poland or about the world in general.

The statistics at the end of the 1st paragraph don't add much: I'd recommend removing them. (You can always put them in the Talk page if you want other people's feedback about whether they're worth including)

Zwiazek Zydowskich Gluchoniemych section: always avoid the term "deaf-mute" unless absolutely necessary (e.g. a direct quote where the term is signficant). In contemporary English, that is a slur. Matthall.research (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Final graded feedback:

This section is much better now! I would still have liked to know more about mainstream education for DHH students. New score: 2.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Higher Education section

Informal feedback:

My biggest concern here is what seems to be a significant disconnect between the claims in your article and the content of your sources. For instance, you cite the gyanberry.com website 3 times, to support the claims that:

1) 35 universities offer admission to DHH students

2) There is a lack of legal protection for DHH students attending higher ed

3) Many DHH people pursue helping professions (e.g. human services).

When I read through that website, I found no support for any of those claims. I see that you've entered Deaf Studies and Poland as search terms, and that 35 results come up. But when I look at the actual names of these programs, I don't see any that are actually Deaf Studies programs. Furthermore, even if there were MA programs in Deaf Studies, that doesn't provide any evidence that DHH people are attending them: they could very well be full of hearing people. This is also at the graduate level, so it doesn't tell us anything about what's going on at the undergraduate level. And it certainly doesn't provide information about legal protections (or the lack thereof), or the specific fields of study that DHH students enter. I'm really not sure where you got that information: perhaps you cited the wrong source? All of the topics that you raise in this section are interesting and relevant ones, but it's not appropriate to talk about them unless you can ground them in evidence. That hasn't happened here yet.

The part about the admissions test is fine, and well-cited.

The Deaf Learning Project is super cool!! There's not really a section where it obviously fits, but I think it's fine to keep it in here. However, some of your writing is still connecting the dots rather than reporting the facts. I think that's because you were worried about showing how it's related to higher education, but that ends up distorting the facts in the source, which don't really talk about higher ed much at all. Instead, focus on key facts from the source: it has some great ones! For example, it reports on literacy levels among DHH people in Poland, and several specific initiatives related to education, literacy, vocational training, and more. You can certainly address some of those in different sections if you prefer (vocational training might go well under employment, for instance), but you could mention some of that content here. What you must NOT do is go beyond what the source says. For instance, I don't see anything here about it being either a response to DHH people being turned away from higher ed, or designed to facilitate DHH people's entry into higher ed.

The other general feedback I'll provide here is that the writing in this section is below the standard that's expected at Wikipedia. There are a handful of stray words, unfinished phrases, odd verb agreement, etc. As you rewrite, just read the section out loud to yourself before publishing, and make sure it sounds like something a human would say. Matthall.research (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Final graded feedback:

This section is also greatly improved - can you tell the difference? Its main weakness now is simply that it's not extracting nearly as much useful info from the sources as it could. Domagala-Zysk (2019) is an especially wonderful resource that I wish you had mined more deeply. Score: 2/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Employment section

Informal feedback:

-1st sentence: citation needed

-2nd sentence: The source from IFHOHYP is international, not specific to Poland. If you include this source, make it clear that it's not Poland-specific.

-3rd sentence: citation needed

-4th sentence: same comment as #2, but more importantly:

[*] You used a direct quote without identifying that it was a quote: NEVER ok!

[*] You also completely misinterpreted the point of that quote, distorting it to the point that it has the opposite meaning! Also never ok! The person that's being quoted is expressing their frustration with the fact that their manager believes that minimum wage is ok! I'm really glad that you asked me to take a look at this now, because I would have had a really difficult time giving you a passing grade if you make mistakes as serious as these.

5th sentence: clarify that you're talking about the employment rate for disabled people in Poland (not the general population, and not DHH people specifically)

6th sentence: - same comment as #2, and shouldn't this also be the same source? What makes it different from #33?

7th sentence: this is the opposite problem as the 4th sentence: you've used quotation marks, but I don't see this quote anywhere in the source. I also don't understand what the original quote is, or why you're using it here.

4 Step Program:

1st sentence: citation needed

2nd sentence: fix the acronym

The rest of the section is good!

Matthall.research (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Final graded feedback:

You addressed several concerns, some superficial and some more serious, but left one serious error unaddressed. DHH people are NOT happy to just receive minimum wage! You continue to misunderstand your source, and putting this false information out into the world risks doing real harm.

There are still other errors, such as failing to provide the actual name of the UN CRPD.

New score: 1.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Healthcare section

1st sentence; "Poland grants" doesn't match the name of the source. I also didn't see direct support for the claim that there is a need for better emergency healthcare services. I don't doubt that that's true, but the source does not provide direct evidence for that claim. Instead, you can describe the services that the program provides, which include better access to health. Most of this project (which is super cool!) might fit better under the human/civil rights section.

2nd sentence: As far as I can tell, the citation you've provided here has absolutely nothing to do with DHH people being able to text emergency services! Where did that come from?? (The previous source did talk about DHH people being able to access emergency services via an interpreter, but that's different from texting, and you'd need to cite the previous source.)

Sentences 3-4: This is what's called paraphrasing plagiarism, and it's never acceptable. You've swapped a few words here and there, but it's clear that the sentence in your article is really parasitic on the sentence from the original source: you're not expressing your understanding of the content in your own words.

Source: "healthcare system reforms that, although not fully satisfactory for everyone, enabled verification  of actual demand for different modern medical services and created a chance to open in the Institute new clinics and research teams."

Your version (paraphrasing plagiarism): "There were reforms in the healthcare system which, although not entirely satisfactory for all, enabled the Institute to verify the actual demand for different modern medical services and to establish new clinics and research teams."

Actual paraphrase (but don't use this: write your own!): "The modernization of Poland's healthcare systems in the 1990s facilitated pediatric cochlear implantation." (Notice that my summary synthesizes information across several paragraphs in the source. That's often a good way to tell that you're summarizing. Paraphrasing plagiarism usually keeps information at the sentence level.

My broader question is: why is this here? Information about cochlear implantation services belongs in the Early Hearing Detection & Intervention section. This section is where we learn about how DHH people take care of their physical & mental health, along with barriers they encounter while doing so. Being deaf is not a disease.

Interpreter sentence: Good! Not paraphrased, appropriately cite, and relevant content. More like this!

Next 2 sentences: This kind of high-level information is best presented at the beginning of the section, and then you can continue to address the specific needs of / services for DHH people.

The rest: because this info isn't DHH-specific, I don't think readers benefit from going into this level of detail.

Overall, this section gives me concerns about both of our core learning objectives. Regarding epistemic humility, it seems that you have not recognized how little information you've been able to find about DHH people's experiences with healthcare in Poland. Instead, you're stretching to make use of data sources that simply don't contain the information you need. Regarding scholarly inquiry: first, your searches (or evaluation of the results) have not been effective in getting you to good sources. Second, your approach to using the sources you've found has included paraphrasing plagiarism, intentionally or not. Fortunately, it's not too late to address these concerns! I recommend focusing on information that you find in this source: http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:586691/FULLTEXT02.pdf (I found this source simply by entering the terms deaf, health, poland in the library search page and selecting the articles tab.)

Matthall.research (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Final graded feedback:

Once again, this section is now significantly better than it previously was; the main limitation is that you've made very little use of rich sources of information. New score: 2/3. Matthall.research (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Language endangerment & revitalization

Final graded feedback:

You mention that it's listed but never report what the rating actually is!

The section on survival starts off poorly; the first sentence is incomplete, and it's not clear how the historical context relates to the topic (which is future-focused). The second sentence is the strongest part of this section, although PJM is misspelled.

Score: 1.5/3 Matthall.research (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)