Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augmentative and alternative communication/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [1].

---

Augmentative and alternative communication

Augmentative and alternative communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Augmentative and alternative communication/archive1

Nominator(s): Poule, Failedwizard, and Quadell 22:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is critical in the lives of millions of people who depend on it to communicate. User:Poule made improving the article part of an educational assignment. Later User:Failedwizard improved it further and helped make it a "good article". Since then, Poule, FW, and I have worked together (in a sort of informal peer review process) to make sure every aspect is fully and correctly covered. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources review:The sources look unimpeachable. Just a couple of clerical points for your attention:-

• Some of the footnotes have common or overlapping page ranges (for example, 45 and 49 - possibly others). These should be combined.
  • Good point. I fixed this in this instance, and in several others I found. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• In references, check alphabetical order: "Hazell, Gillian"; "Rate enhancement"; "Weymeyer, M. L. (et al)"
  • I can't believe I'd missed those! I fixed them, and double-checked the others. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, all well. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods; those that are not should not. In general, captions should meet same standards of prose and formatting as article text
  • I believe all such problems have been fixed. Please let me know if any problems remain. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Avoid stacking images or sandwiching text between images where possible
  • In the "Aided AAC" section, I believe it is useful to contrast high-tech and low-tech AAC aids. I changed the format to use the {{multiple image}} template. Does this address your concerns? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sign language image: caption says this is LSQ, but image description says the same sign also applies in ASL. If this is correct, the caption should reflect this
  • Thanks for finding that, but the statement about ASL may not be completely reliable (per Poule, below). – Quadell ^(talk) 15:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• When taking pictures of artwork or three-dimensional things, the original work retains copyright independent of that of the picture. Thus, some of your images will need additional copyright tags. For example, what is the copyright status of the images seen in File:Communication_book.jpg? File:Minimo.jpg? File:Gotalk.jpg? File:VMax.jpg?
  • I'm unsure whether these count as derivative works or not, so I asked for further advice at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Derivative Work issues in photos of AAC aids. Whatever the best solution is, I'll gladly do. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • File:Communication_book.jpg and File:VMax.jpg, are, in my mind, clearly derivative works. I've nominated them both for deletion Commonsside. I'm not certain, and could be swayed by a good argument, on the other two, however. Courcelles 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid that I have a very hard time understanding image copyright issues, but if it is any help the communication book and the go talk pages/overlays are my own work: in other words, I designed them, including deciding how many symbols to use, which ones to use and where they should go; a clear creative aspect was involved. The other two pictures show standard programming produced by the manufacturer. Poule (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
        • It turns out that this issue is geniunely a AAC research question in its own right, but I don't want to take the conversation out of purpose - I think its useful to ask how Wikipedia treats pictures of, say, a laptop showing windows and a picture of a laptop showing windows with a picture drawn in Paint?(and I genuniely don't know at this point) because that's the closest analogy for those images we are discussing here... Failedwizard (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Regarding File:Communication book.jpg, I offer a self-made replacement image that uses only free content: File:Sample page from AAC communication book.png. For File:VMax.jpg, I moved it to en.wiki and used both a free license (for the photograph itself) and a non-free tag and rationale (for the underlying screenshot). For File:Gotalk.jpg and File:Minimo.jpg, I believe that any potentially copyrighted underlying content consists only of line drawings that are not recognizable at the angle and resolution given in the way the photograph is presented in the article, similar to the TV screens and book covers in File:Nyas lobby wtc7.jpg or the advertising signs in File:2004 norwich 05.JPG (which are both tagged as free and currently used in featured articles). I hope this addresses all concerns with these images. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• File:Stephen_Hawking_050506.jpg: the listed source gives itself as a source - should be amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick answers; I've fixed the periods. Regarding adding ASL to LSQ, I'm not comfortable adding the information on the say so of the uploader. The signer is an LSQ user, and the ASL signs for interpreter that I have found are similar but not identical. (e.g. [2]. I think Quadell knows a lot about image copyright, so I'll let him comment about the image issue, but I can certainly email to ask for release if necessary.Poule (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A quick update. I think we have dealt with all the concerns from Brian and Nikkimaria mentioned above. Concerning the images, Courcelles has withdrawn his concerns about the communication book image given that it is my own creation.[3], and any others that have been mentioned that been dealt with by Quadell as mentioned above. I hope we get some other reviews soon. Hint hint --Poule (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62 · Talk. I was browsing through the list of articles at WP:FAC looking for something interesting to review, and this immediately caught my eye. Regardless of the outcome of this FAC, kudos to the authors for taking the time to work on this interdisciplinary topic. Hurricanes, films, and mushrooms can bite my ass. Anywho, on to the review:

• "It was not until the 1980s that AAC began to emerge as an area in its own right." Area of what? Could be research, medicine, etc.
  • I don't have the history reference I'm afraid - Poule? Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• "On static speech generating devices, symbols are in fixed positions on a paper overlay..." This is the first instance of "static" in the article, and I'm not entirely sure if it is a specific class of high-tech aids, or if it refers to low-tech thingies.
  • Rewritten Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• "However, high-tech devices typically require programming, and as they are prone to be unreliable" Err... what? Why are they unreliable? This could be interpreted so many different ways that it's not even worth trying to list them all.
  • replaced with 'and a low-tech system is often recommended as a backup in case of mechanical failure.' Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• "these include Blissymbols, which possesses linguistic characteristics such as grammatical indicators, and the more iconic Picture Communication Symbols (PCS) which does not." Two things that concern me here. First, the subject-verb disagreement: "Blissymbols" and "Picture Communication Symbols" are plural, but "possesses" and "does not" are singular. Second, this phrasing seems to think that Blissymbols are better than PCS. If the sources indicate that the inclusion of linguistic characteristics is a reason to favor Blissymbols, that should be stated explicitly. If you are instead just trying to make a general comparison, the phrasing could be tweaked to be a bit more neutral.
  • I've fixed the plural (apologies, should *really* have seen that earlier) - the sentence it's self was quite difficult to get consensus on (it's an amazing percentage of the talk) so I'd like to leave it as alone if you are just mentioning it in passing, but happy to change if you really would like it changed. Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• "including understanding of symbols, memory etc." Eek! I'm not a fan of "etc." First, it is not always clear what the other items in the list would be. Second, there are much nicer ways to phrase this: "including understanding of symbols, memory, and various other thingamabobs" or whatever.
  • Sentence is now 'The choice of symbols and aspects of their presentation, such as size and background, depends on an individual's preferences as well as their linguistic, visual, and cognitive skills.'

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If this is indeed the will of the Council, then Gondor will see it done.Failedwizard (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.