Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication

Augmentative and alternative communication has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 13, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
September 10, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 8, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Good article

Disability

Augmentative and alternative communication 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

Autism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 2009. Further details are available here.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 13:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is generally excellent. I have made minor grammatical and stylistic changes where appropriate. But there are still a few places where "jargony" terms are used that are not defined, and leave an uninitiated reader confused. Can you either define these or reword? Below are the examples I found, emphasis mine. ~~"Since the 1990s, there has been an increase in in-class and natural education techniques, as opposed to traditional pull-out methods"~~ ~~"the Amer-Ind code is based on American Indian Hand Talk" (Does the latter refer to Plains Indian Sign Language?)~~ ~~"PECS" is mentioned in the "Effect on speech" section. It was defined above, far up in the article, but many readers would benefit from PECS being redefined, as it is in the "Autism" section below.~~ ~~"In the bulbar form of ALS,"~~ ~~"writing or typing VOCA devices may be optimal"~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	It follows all MoS guidelines.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Many sources are not linked to online content, but could be. I did this for one reference, but others could use hyperlinks as well. (Try Googling the name of the journal article.) While I think this suggestion could improve the references, I don't believe it should be an obstacle to achieving GA status.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The citations are good and very reliable. I have access to Beukelman and Mirenda, the most-used source in the article, and have checked a dozen or so citations. Each time, the source backs up the claim, and in no case was there plagiarism.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems found.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article answers nearly any general question about AAC that I can imagine. I reviewed this article with a friend of mine who is taking a masters-level class on AAC, and she believes that this article is comprehensive.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays focused, without unnecessary tangents or interruptions.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	After discussing the article's scope with several people more knowledgeable than myself about the topic, I'm confident that there are no serious POV problems.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This is not an issue at this time.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are free content, and are tagged appropriately. I've checked them with TinEye, and none look suspect.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images and captions are all good.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a good article.

REFS :) Just logged in to find that all the references are now beutifully organised! Thank you so much Quadell! :) Failedwizard (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to do it! – Quadell ^(talk) 20:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke with some other reviewers, and the consensus is that the lead, while good, still leaves out too much of the article. If you could add one more paragraph summarizing some of the other sections (in the TOC), I think that'll do it. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed! Well done, and congratulations! – Quadell ^(talk) 19:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop! Thank you so much for all your help - I think you've now edited the article more than I have. I really hope to be working with you in the future again - my two little projects from now are to generate a composite image for this site and to sort out the references in Speech_generating_device in preperation for a big extension there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Failedwizard (talk • contribs) 07:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Tyepel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Facilitated communication

There have been at least two attempts to insert into this article that facilitated communication in less than thoroughly debunked. Please read the article-- It is the most thoroughly debunked intervention in all of developmental disabilities. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two history Sections

Why are there two sections called "History"? Is there a good reason for this? --66.244.121.212 (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baby sign language

Should the article include a discussion of Baby sign language? It seems to have some similarities. I will leave the decision to wiser minds than mine. Pete unseth (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: the fact that, since 2018, AAC has been used to communicate with dogs and cats. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]