Talk:Speech-generating device/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 03:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Hi,[reply]

This article looks very interesting. I will start the review soon. From what I can tell, looking it over, it seems to be quite well done! MathewTownsend (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:) Failedwizard (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning review

The article is in good shape and I really enjoyed reading it. I made a bunch of very small changes, mostly of the grammar/spelling type, and added some links. Please feel free to change any mistakes I made. Especially with the linking - I was trying to help myself understand the article.

I have a few comments/questions:

lede

Would it be ok to say "important for people who have limited means of talking" or "interacting verbally" instead of "communicating verbally" - just to dial down the use of communicating/communication?

Done Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"users of all abilities" - not clear what this means - perhaps "users with various abilities"? or "users with varying abilities"?

Done Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

Could you give a little more information about the people, like Toby Churchill to give the reader a feel for the people that are using these devices and the experiences they face. Like what their disability is, how they got it, etc. Would it be appropriate to mention the Lightwriter?

Expanding Toby in a relatively small way - happy to do more, I'm not overly keen to push one manufacturer or device over another so I'm not *that* keen to pop the Lightwriter in, but I'm happy to if you think it's important :) Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does eye pointing or scanning work? How do eyes provide input, or whatever happens?

Expanded this a little Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"to reduced in size and weight," to be reduced? To become smaller and lighter?

Done Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"while increasing accessibility and capacities" - while becoming more accessible with increasing capacity ?? Capacity for what? Increasingly powerful? To access internet and such? Could be worded more clearly.

Switched 'capacities', with 'capabilities' which is I think what I meant the first time *blush* Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Input methods

"utterances" - what does this mean? expressions? or messages? outputs? Further down there are some examples. Maybe it would be better to explain these up here also. Is it words, phrases, sentences?

Explained a little bit more based on source, can give full examples if you like but that might require a bit of a rearrangement of the article :s Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Access methods for speech generating devices

Could you explain a little how switch access scanning works?

Not got to this yet, will come back Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so certainly can, and will do if you think it's worthwhile, but I think it's fair to mention that switch access scanning might get a serious overhaul of it's own within the next little while (See Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Animation for example) and I think it may well be an article to be reconed with in it's own right soon... what do you think? Failedwizard (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think the article will benefit from a little elaboration on some of this issues. (I am having a problem fitting the images into their section, and some beefing up will help.) As far as a separate article, cross that bridge when you come to it. And it does no harm to have some repetition providing context for readers like me. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded with sources :) Failedwizard (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General

Why so much mention of the UK and no other country? Are they really in the forefront?

Um, I wasn't aware it was that much... can you point out some points were you feel it's a bit heavy handed?

Reply - Well, the UK is the only country mentioned, and it is mentioned twice. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, bit of national pride creeping in there I suppose, I've dropped the one in the lede as it's least relevant there...Failedwizard (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More reply There is also a UK in a caption. So there are two UK's and no other country mentioned. This is a little POV and not broad, unless you can justify this focus! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped the caption, added the Netherlands as home of some early technology. :) Failedwizard (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary to have a footnote for each mention of Roger Ebert

Done, lost the one in the lede Failedwizard (talk)

Could this image be described more fully?

Expanded Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may add a few more. Please feel free to contact me or ask questions (and to fix my mistakes!)

No problem, thanks for this - I'm currently making edits very hurriedly on a train as it pulls in so sorry if this is brisk! Failedwizard (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Failedwizard, the references are screwed up. Please check. Also, the lede needs to be expanded somewhat to summarize the content of the article, per lead. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My bad on reference, was hasty earlier, fixed now. Will look into lede, are the any sections you think are particularly under-summerised? Or would a general expansion suit? Failedwizard (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 16 update

I have been reading Augmentative and alternative communication and I think there is some very good content in there that directly applies to SGDs and would clarify and enhance this article. I understood a lot more about this article after reading it. For example, information in the Access and selection methods and Vocabulary organization directly apply to SGDs. And there is some more explanation there of some of the concepts only briefly touched on here. For example, there is a clear explanation of low and high tech devices, and the distinction between grid and other formats. I "lifted" a few sentences but feel that more could be added. A reader shouldn't have to read that article, or any other article, to understand this one. How do you feel about this suggestion?

I wouldn't mind doing it myself (to some degree, as I am no expert and you would have to make sure I wasn't adding unreferenced material.) I don't think it would be hard to do, just adding material that directly enhances the descriptions of SGDs.

Also, the lede needs work. Right now it is too short and doesn't summarize the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first off - I'll spend some time on the lede tonight, it's something I often have a weakness on. On the relationship between this article and the Augmentative_and_alternative_communication I would like to be very careful. To a very large extend this is something of a sub-article dealing with the hi-tech aspects of Augmentative_and_alternative_communication and which content belongs in which article has been subject to quite a lot of debate (there are a few bits that are not how I would like them, but I think it's important to respect other editors involved...) Currently there's a lot of places in the AAC article that link here, and that's probably the route most readers will arrive at this article, but I do agree it should stand on it's own. I'd like to get input from some other editors with an interest in both articles (Particularly user:Poule) before much more migration happens - If it's something that's a sticking point in the GA review then we can probably work thought it (the stuff you brought in from Semantic_compaction is great for example, but I'd like not to be risking a Wikipedia:Content_forking situation with Augmentative_and_alternative_communication while it's on it's (bumpy) route back to FAC. Sound reasonable?

While I think on - just looking at the criteria - do you still have any concerns with things like captions or OR? Not entirely sure were we are on the other aspects...Failedwizard (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, if you're getting a taste for this topic there are all manner of related projects ;) Failedwizard (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added several paragraphs to the lede. Failedwizard (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to lede issue

In Lead: Introductory text it says that it is very important that the text in the lede be accessible, that "specialized terminology be avoided, and that where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader."

The reason I have struggled so much with this article is that I had to read several other articles in order to know what was being talked about in the lede. The term Augmentative and alternative communication is jargon and the general reader isn't going to know what it means. You can't expect the reader to read that article in order to continue with Speech generating device. Each article must stand on its own.

For example, the phrase: "to improve the content management" in the lede was confusing to me, because I, the reader had not been told what these "devices" do (in simple language), nor what content needed to be managed. And, although everything in the lede must be covered in the text, "content management" is not mentioned again in the body of the article, nor its meaning explained. I began to understand it after reading Augmentative and alternative communication several times.

Seeing the image with the caption: "Speech generating device using a visual scene display, accessed using a head mouse" was a revelation to me as I had no idea what a "headmouse" was, or that any of these "devices" were in other than a grid format. The article is not broad if it doesn't give some flavor of the variety of these "devices", the different ways they organize and allow creation of "messages", and the variety of ways the user interacts with the "devices", manipulates the content and outputs a communication. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I've made some comments which I think you can easily address. I may add a few more but nothing major.

The lede needs to be expanded to summarize the article per lead.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Still have to check but I'm not worried.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Perhaps more explanation could be added, as mentioned above, and some more information about the notable users.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Question about one image, that the caption could be more explanatory. The images are great and very helpful.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]