I’ve recently seen in many papers online and on wikiHow even, people are using the wrong type of language (Identify first for communities that prefer person first language, or vice versa, not capitalizing the first letter of the disability, etc.)

I think that it would not only inform people, but it has top-notch images, reliable references and personal experience (MissLunaRose is Autistic)

Any opinions?

Does anyone have experience in this type of thing? Willing to edit it even more?

@MissLunaRose

I don’t really know anything about the topic, but the article title seems a little clunky to me just in terms of grammar. Would “Write About a Disability” or “Write About Disabilities” be better than the current title?

^+1 I agree.

Besides this, I learnt in college that we use the term ‘Partially able’ than disability which may hurt sentiments. wikiHow looks for better keywords for readers so disability may be what many readers may search.

I didn’t realize that you could request for an article to be featured, but here are my thoughts on it:

The entire article tells you “don’t do this” and “avoid words like that”, but then offers very few replacements for the words I can’t use. The very first step says “Don’t talk about people’s disabilities”, which contradicts the rest of the article. A lot of the substeps just seem like things about disabled people, like “not all people who need disabled parking spots use mobility devices”. That doesn’t really help me to write about a disability. Step 3 in section 2 isn’t really a step, it’s just something to keep in mind and would be better served as a tip. I can’t figure out what step 2 in section 2 is trying to say, the first half is about inspiring disabled people, but the second part is about inspiring non-disabled people and quote “belittling [people without disablity’s] excuses for not doing something a disabled person can (?)”

Overall I think the subject is just to volatile to accurately depict at any given time. It’s a pretty decent article, but something that is accepted and not offensive may be considered offensive within a month. As the article stands, it’s a good article, but is it ready for being featured? My vote is not yet. 

+1

I wasn’t requesting for it to be featured, it wasn’t my article. I was thinking it would be a great candidate. I read your step, and I think I agree.

 The very first step says “Don’t talk about people’s disabilities”, which contradicts the rest of the article

Step 1 is saying that there is no need to reference a disability unless it is relevant. Very important to the article.

The entire article tells you “don’t do this” and “avoid words like that”, but then offers very few replacements for the words I can’t use. 

Actually, many articles say things like “avoid _____.”It says “Stick to factual language (step 7 part 1)” as opposed to “suffers from”

Also, on step 5, it is explaining what slurs are considered offensive. For some people, they may not believe that the word “midget” is offensive, but it is to many disabled people.

 A lot of the substeps just seem like things about disabled people, like “not all people who need disabled parking spots use mobility devices”

I think you’re right about the “People in handicapped spots may not use a mobility device.” I may remove that.

Step 3 in section 2 isn’t really a step, it’s just something to keep in mind and would be better served as a tip

Actually, the one about “Don’t assume disabilities can be overcome.” can set the tone for your whole piece.

I can’t figure out what step 2 in section 2 is trying to say, the first half is about inspiring disabled people, but the second part is about inspiring non-disabled people and quote “belittling [people without disablity’s] excuses for not doing something a disabled person can (?)”

Step 2 section 2 is saying that living with a disability isn’t automatically superhuman, but is not implying that disabled people overcome challenges. 

I made a few small edits to remove some weaved links that were not quite related. In general, the article is (in my opinion) still over-weaved, but I tried to remove the ones that were too far off to be truly relevant.

I think the article is decent enough, maybe enough so to be featured, but I do share @Grahamster ’s concerns that the article contains a lot of negative steps. We don’t have a hard and fast rule against that here, but excellent articles take a positive approach in communicating the same information. It is often much easier to say what NOT to do rather than what TO do, but by doing so, the tone of the article becomes demeaning instead of uplifting; nobody really wants to read an article that mostly tells us what NOT to do (as an aside, if you want articles like that, read literally anything on the Huffington Post…)

There could also be more examples of how this manner of thinking would actually translate into writing. There are a few, but I feel like in general the article is more focused on generally improving the discourse when discussing disability, rather than concretely attacking the problem of writing about it. However, with some thoughtful revision and clarification and addition of examples (and turning the negatives into positives), this article surely would be a great featured article.

By the way, placing the “fac” template on the article’s discussion page nominates the article for featuring, and it doesn’t have to be done separately here in the forums, although I think it is an excellent idea to bring it to the community for collaboration, improvement, and general discussion.

Also, I have absolutely no problem with the title of the article. “Disability” is the umbrella term for this, and there is no grammatical reason to make it plural.

I loved the images in the article.

Thanks, Vish! (I drew most of them.)

I gave it a try based on above feedback, removing some superfluous links and rearranging a few bullet points. Here’s how it looks now. http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Write-About-Disability&diff=19434556&oldid=19417409