Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication/GA1

! width="30" | Rate

! width="300"| Attribute

! | Review Comment

|

| 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

|

{{GATable/item|1a|+|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"

}}

{{GATable/item|1b|+|It follows all MoS guidelines.

}}

|

| 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

|

{{GATable/item|2a|+|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.

}}

{{GATable/item|2b|+|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.

}}

{{GATable/item|2c|+|No problems found.

}}

|

| 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

|

{{GATable/item|3a|+| 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.

}}

{{GATable/item|3b|+| The article stays focused, without unnecessary tangents or interruptions.

}}

{{GATable/item|4|+| 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.

}}

{{GATable/item|5|y|This is not an issue at this time.

}}

|

| 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

|

{{GATable/item|6a|+|All images are free content, and are tagged appropriately. I've checked them with TinEye, and none look suspect.

}}

{{GATable/item|6b|+|Images and captions are all good.

}}

{{GATable/item|7|+|This is a good article.

}}