User talk:ABBslp/sandbox

Peer Review
Hey! I think the sections you are adding are very helpful for the reader and your overall tone reflects that of other wikipedia articles!

I noticed that in the second sentence of the voice rehabilitation section that you are missing "of" = the loss of voice and of normal and efficient verbal communication is an important consequence associated to this type "OF" surgery.

In the complications section - I am wondering if you could possibly mention how PCF could impact oral feeding and delay this process. You also mention a vascularized flap and it may be helpful for the reader to have a one sentence line explaining what this is. VoiceDisordersKristine (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarah's Peer Review
Hey! I think your draft looks great so far. It flows nicely, maintains a neutral tone and is easy to follow. I only found a few changes.

In your Voice Rehabilitation section, I’d suggest rewording “important consequence associated to this type of surgery” to something like “is a negative consequence associated with this type of surgery and can have….”. Also make sure to add the word “of” before surgery in “this type of surgery”.

In your complications section, I would suggest removing “according to a recent scientific review” and just to state the information like a fact, e.g., “Up to 29% of persons…”. You have a link to the source, so it isn’t necessary to specify that the information comes from a scientific review.

Other than those minor changes, everything looks very good! I’m looking forward to reading the final version:) SarahJay (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by Jdavid06
Hi ABBslp!

I really enjoyed reading your draft, you use a professional and neutral writing style and your information is clear and easy to understand.

In your Complications section, I would suggest rewording "Different factors have been associated with an increased risk" to replace "different" with something like "various" or "numerous" because you use the word "different" a few times already in your section. I would also switch the word order in "reduce significantly" so that it says "has been shown to significantly reduce the risks of PCF" to make it flow better.

You did a great job of explaining the technical terms you use. I would suggest also including some hyperlinks for the terms that readers may not be familiar with, such as for some of the risk factors you list.

Great job, you have an excellent draft so far! Jdavid06 (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Mila's Peer Review
Great contributions so far! I agree that these are important topics that needed more coverage so I am glad that you are doing this! Your contribution does a good job of highlighting these topics, without overly explaining them. This is appropriate given the fact that they are slightly more peripheral to the topic of Laryngectomy.

I would make a few stylistic changes, just to make the passage appear more formal. For example, I might include that the larynx is "an organ essential for natural sound production", given that the prosthetic options still result in sound, just not naturally! I would also suggest that you replace one of the "essential" adjectives in the first paragraph with another synonym such as "crucial", "required", or "necessary".

I think it's very valuable that you are including a complications section. This is making me think about my own article and whether I should consider adding a note about possible challenges or cons to voice therapy.

Thanks!

Mil.sch (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Mil.sch

Feedback from Nicole
Hi Arielle

You did a great job in writing the section of complications. It is not an easy topic to write but you did well. You were also responsive to your peers comments.

Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCSD639 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)