Talk:Machine translation of sign languages

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 12 May 2017. Further details are available here.

Wiki Ed peer reviews[edit]

Hi, great post so far. I think this is a great page and can be valuable. I liked how you mentioned various technologies and not just one technology. Something to keep in mind throughout the post is to avoid any bias. In the first section, you guys wrote "However, although a fantastic concept, there is great controversy surrounding these technologies." -- I would avoid using the word fantastic as it reflects bias, however I do think stating that there is controversy surrounding these technologies is important. Another area I would take another look at is the "UNI Technology" - in there you had some direct quotes under the publicity heading. I would avoid adding direct quotes and just mentioning where that technology as publicized. Lastly, I would make sure that in each section you explain clearly why there is controversy surrounding that technology. I know this is a work in progress, but I think it's great so far. (Mcanne (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)).[reply]

→The introduction that you have constructed for the beginning of the article is outlined well. It is inviting and clearly states the points being covered. However, it begins to stem away from an encyclopedia-style article. I believe that you could find a good amount of sources for the first introduction portion of your article. Doing this could create more of the encyclopedia-style article that Wikipedia is built on. Statements that you have made could be proven to be correct with multiple sources of technologies that you are speaking of. The introduction also gives you a chance to link your article to other articles on Wikipedia. I also believe that you could create one more summarized version of the three-paragraph introduction that you have provided. Usually the Wikipedia articles have a shortened version that is only a few sentences. This could create a well-structured article.

The information on the technologies that you have spoken about are clearly outlined and provide great sources to create an effective Wikipedia article. However, I have noticed that the closing statements for the technologies mentioned do not provide a source for the statement. Stating the "problems" of the technology tends to provide a bias view of the technology. I believe that writing in a way that simply states what the technology is missing instead a "problem" would offer a better encyclopedia style. However, if you are able to cite that the following have been listed as problems, it could also be used.

Bringing in the well-known folks who have used the technologies is a great addition to the article. This provides great context for your information and its cultural presence. Maybe an organized table with the names of the folks, dates of quotes and technologies that they are speaking of could provide a better visual aid for readers. Chrisanchezz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-Great article so far! After reading through the article and coming here to the talk page, I noticed the other two posters have already mentioned my same ideas, specifically stating "problems" in terms of the technology creates a negative bias. One thing that we disagree on though, is that I think it's great that you have so many quotes from different places stating what they thought about the technology, but I would suggest to provide a better way for readers to digest the information. I know this is obviously a work in progress, as all of us are in the midst of doing, but creating a table, like mentioned above, or maybe getting rid of some quotes will ensure readability and clarity. It seems like it's more of a chance to fill the page up instead of providing more information. Overall, great start to your article, keep trucking on! Lamersme (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-The latter section of the article is very well sourced and I appreciate the variety of different technologies discussed. The introduction paragraph reads a bit more like an opinion piece although it doesn't sound overtly biased. The opening phrase "it is no secret" doesn't seem consistent to the tone of the remaining article. Maybe just starting the sentence with "The use of technology is on the rise..." would solve this problem. In the following section: "Unfortunately, the gloves do not have capability for written English input to glove movement output or the ability to hear language and then sign it to a deaf person, which means they are not useful in reciprocal communication. The main problems with the device is that it does not incorporate facial expressions and has no way of creating two way conversation." It might be better to rephrase certain parts that make it sound biased like "unfortunately" or "the main problems". I would scrap the word "unfortunately" and change the word "problem" to "complaint" to shift the opinion from the writer of the article to Deaf individuals / users of the device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmsc42 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]