User talk:Kira2525

Hello, Kira2525, and

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dodger67. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Deaf culture have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You have already been told that the material you added to Deaf culture does not belong in that article. The Cochlear implant article already exists, you are welcome to improve that page. Please do not add the cochlear implant content to the Deaf culture article again. Doing so may get you blocked for edit warring Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed), please help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information about cochlear implants belong in a medical article, such as Hearing loss, where it is already discussed. Sundayclose (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually an article about cochlear implants, however, the Deaf culture article should probably contain at least a paragraph about the controversy over these devices within Deaf communities. What the Deaf culture article should definitely not contain is a full treatment of the technicalities of the device itself and how it is implanted, as that is precisely the topic of the cochlear implant article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: Deaf culture does discuss the controversy. Sundayclose (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose it currently contains only a single brief mention, it could do with more detail as it is a very significant issue in the Deaf community. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:WEIGHT in my opinion. I don't think the cochlear implant is nearly as important as many other issues in Deaf culture. I know hundreds of deaf people and have never known anyone to express a negative opinion. I think any opposition to cochlear implants is related more to the push by the educational system and society in general away from sign language that sometimes accompanies any technology that improves the auditory system. Sundayclose (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Kira. As Roger says, there are some problems with your edits. The first thing is that it is critically important that you don't reinsert content if someone reverts your edit. This is edit warring, and can get you blocked from editing Wikipedia.

More specifically though, the content has problems, both in terms of what you added and where you added it. I realize that cochlear implants are significant in deaf culture - in fact, I've heard people describe them as a threat to deaf culture. So while they're worth mentioning on the page, they should be described in relation to deaf culture. Specific information about cochlear implants belong in the cochlear implant article; the deaf culture article should discuss them in the context of deaf culture, not how they work or what they cost.

There's a second problem with what you've written, and that has to do with tone. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to have a very specific tone - concise, formal writing. "What makes up a cochlear implant" isn't an appropriate section title - it's too informal. "Components" might be a more appropriate section title. "How a cochlear implant works and who gets them" might be two sections with names like "Functioning" and "Availability". Take a look at pages 7-9 of the Editing Wikipedia brochure for some more ideas about this. You should have received a hard copy from your instructor, but just in case, I have linked to it above.

If you look at the specific content, in the first section you wrote

The make of Cochlear implants had started in the late 1970's but has recently become popular. A cochlear implant is a small device to help those who are deaf or severely hard of hearing to gain the sense of hearing. The implant is made of two portions one portions has to be surgically implanted into the person while the other portion sits behind an ear. There are four parts to a cochlear implant the first in a microphone the second is a speech processor which is used for arranges the sounds from the microphone. A transmitter and receiver is used for takes the speech signals and turns them into electrical impulses. The final part is the electrode array sends the impulses to the auditory nerve to give someone the ability to understand speech

• "The make of Cochlear implants..."

  - I believe what you mean here is "The manufacture of cochlear implants...". You need to carefully proofread your work to avoid typos like this. In addition, since "cochlear" isn't a proper noun, it shouldn't be capitalized.

• "...had started in the late 1970's but has recently become popular."

  - This isn't precise enough. Does "the late 1970s" mean 1976 or 1979? It would be helpful to know. More importantly, what do you mean by "recently"? Wikipedia articles aren't dated, so the idea of "now" is going to change. There are articles written in 2001 - what was "recent" isn't recent now.

  I'm also a little concerned about where you got this information from. The source you added at the end of the paragraph doesn't mention this; you need to cite all your sources, not just a few of them.

• The implant is made of two portions one portions has to be surgically implanted into the person while the other portion sits behind an ear."

  - Stuff like this isn't incorrect, but it's wordy and unclear. Something like

  "One part is surgically implanted while the other sits behind the ear."

  That avoids "two portions one portion". At the very least, a semicolon would have made that sentence much clearly. Similarly, the lack of commas in the next sentence makes it difficult to read.

• "A transmitter and receiver is used..."

  - Doing a basic check for things like subject-verb agreement is an absolute requirement in something like this.

These tone problems exist throughout your contribution, and need to be fixed.

You also need to remember that everything you add to Wikipedia need to be tied to a supporting source. That isn't true here. In addition, you aren't just writing for an American audience, so a statement like

"Most insurance companies will cover these costs"

, or saying that implants cost $100,000 without specifying a currency or the year that you're talking about is something you should avoid. You should write about things in a global context. If you aren't, you need to specify the context you're working in. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kira2525, please note that the above writing advice does not actually constitute approval that the material should be added to the Deaf culture article. For the reasons already stated it must not. The cochlear implant article is also already quite well developed thus it would be difficult to improve. I'm afraid you've chosen a rather difficult topic to work on simply because the relevant existing articles are already fairly well developed.

Ian (Wiki Ed) I've seen this problem quite frequently where students attempt to work on already well established articles and are met with pushback from the community. It also puts the student at a considerable disadvantage compared to classmates who are creating entirely new articles or improving stubs. Perhaps some guidance on article/topic selection could be developed to address the issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]