User talk:DefactoDave/sandbox

Peer review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? DefactoDave Link to draft you're reviewing: User:DefactoDave/sandbox

Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead does not appear to have been updated. Think of a way to summarize your epidemiology section without repeating yourself so that you can incorporate it into the lead. It looks like after the sentence, "SNHL accounts for about 90% of reported hearing loss." would be a good spot to have your input. Remember not to include new information that is not already in your section. Also don't make it too specific or detailed. Think broad, general, and quick information.

Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it does a good job of covering who is affected and why they are affected.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The genetic portion may not be that relevant due it being so specific, however it is brief. Leaving it in might be nice for those who understand that kind of science.

Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Very few sentences are cited. I am unsure what "(3)" means, but I'm going to assume it is not another source. Any sentence with a statistic or number in it needs to have a source for others to reference. They don't all have to be different sources. It is also okay to use more than two. It seems like you have more information written than was found from your sources. I had issues accessing the sources. Source 1 is a review (i.e. a secondary source) but I am uncertain if source two is as well.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? It seems as if they are thorough and current, although I am uncertain because I can't read into them.

Are the sources current? Source 1 is from 2011 and source 2 is from 2019. Good use of recent information.

Check a few links. Do they work? Good and functional, but not accessible for me.

Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? "Of those afflicted with sensorineural hearing loss, approximately 50% are congenitally related." I'm not sure if congenitally is a word, and if it is, it doesn't sound the best. This sentence might be best reworded.

"Of the genetically related sensorineural hearing loss cases, 75% are autosomal recessive, 15-20% autosomal dominant, and 1-3% Sex linked." I would include "are" between 15-20% and autosomal and 1-3% and sex. Sex should also not be capitalized.

"Mutations in the connexin 26 gene near DFNB1 locus..." Add "the" between near and DFNB1.

"...are thought to account for most of the autosomal recessive genetic related sensorineural hearing loss." Maybe switch genetic to "genetically" here? Making it an "-ly" word doesn't fix it though because that is not really that good of writing. This part of the sentence is clunky. I would reword somehow.

"At least 8.5 per 1000 children younger than age 18 have sensorineural hearing loss." This makes the numbers definitive, or proven, instead of what has been reported. Rephrase the beginning of this sentence.

"At least 314 per 1000 people older than age 65 have hearing loss." Same thing as above.

"At least 314 per 1000 people older than age 65 have hearing loss." Add "who are" between 1000 and people.

"Several risk factors for sensorineural hearing loss have been studied over the past decade. Osteoporosis, stapedotomy surgery, pneumococcal vaccinations, mobile phone users, increased levels of bilirubin at birth." These sentences need to be combined because lists can't be standalone sentences.

"However, underdeveloped countries are two times less likely to develop hearing loss in general compared to developed counties." Omit "however" because this sentence does not relate to the preceding sentence in a contradictory manner. Also, "counties" should be countries.

Important: make sure to site everywhere you have a stat or a number. It needs to be indicated where the information is coming from so that others can reference and check it. Also, these numbers are also estimates, so use words and phrases like "it has been shown" or, "about" or, "as many as..."

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections made are clear to me: who is affected and how are they affected; depth into how it comes about; who is at risk.

Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes!

What are the strengths of the content added? Good, relevant information for people with all types of background knowledge. It also has good structure and neutral content.

How can the content added be improved? Primarily fixing the grammatical errors and adding citations where they need to be. Also, adjust the lead to fit your added information. I would recommend reading aloud what is written because it would allow you to hear the grammatical errors. Mitch Samco (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)