User talk:Jogruber/sandbox

Megan George's peer review
Hi,

Great draft! Your tone sounds very encyclopedic: professional, yet easy to comprehend.

I think a lot of the information in your draft would be great for the lead section of the article. On another note, in the actual article for Puberphonia, there is currently one sentence written in the lead section and then an additional "Introduction" section. I don't think the "Introduction" section is a requirement for Wikipedia, so my suggestion would be to merge all of that information into the lead section, and incorporate most of your draft content there?

I think the structure of your draft is clear and that the organization makes sense. One small thing that I think could improve the draft would be to move the sentence about fundamental frequency to be placed after the sentence that reads, "On average, the male voice deepens by one octave while the female voice lowers by a few semitones." (I think that first section is more about introductory pitch information.) Additionally, before explaining mean fundamental frequency of adults, you could also include a section about mean fundamental frequency of children, to illustrate the change in Hz.

In terms of coverage, I think it's smart that you've included information on normal anatomical changes during puberty. I didn't get the sense that any information was not included that should have been included (save the point about mean fundamental frequency for children that I mentioned above).

Additionally, from my perspective, everything you've written is presented in a neutral tone and all your information seems to be coming from reliable sources. I noticed a reference for a florist's website, but I think this was cited in the part of your Sandbox that you weren't using for your draft.

I have some copyediting suggestions for the first sentence in your "Definition" section, which reads, "Puberphonia is the functional, habitual use of high-pitched voice post puberty after the vocal folds have reached typical adult size." I'm not sure, but you might want to explain what "functional" means or use a different term, as I'm not sure if most readers would know exactly what this means. Similarly, I would probably change the word "post" to "after". To avoid the repetition of "after" in such close proximity, you could change the second "after" to "when" or "once" (e.g., "Puberphonia is the functional, habitual use of high-pitched voice after puberty when/once the vocal folds have reached typical adult size").

I hope these suggestions are helpful. If anything doesn't make sense, let me know on my Talk page or bring it up in class and I will clarify!--Meggeo (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Megan! Thanks so much for your insightful review - I have made all of the changes that you brought up. I especially like the idea of moving some of my section into the lead of the article as the lead right now is very short. Additionally, I like the suggestion of adding the fundamental frequency for children as comparison but unfortunately I haven't been able to locate a reputable source for that yet. I will keep you updated if I find anything. As for explaining the term "functional", I agree that it is a bit confusing so I just took it out completely and re-worked the sentence a bit. Thanks again for the in-depth review! Jogruber (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Arielle's Peer Review
Hi Johanna. I'm going to review your article. I hope this is ok with you! First of all, I want to take the time to congratulate you for your amazing draft. You include the most important elements that are essential to a good Wikipedia article. For example, your lead section is very clear and easy to understand. Also, your article is well-organized, with short, clear and neutral sentences. I only have a few and minor suggestions as your draft already seems pretty solid to me. Similarly as what Megan already mentioned, I think it would be interesting to mention the frequency range that is seen in puberphonia, so that we could have a comparative point to the typical women and men frequency range that you already mentioned. Also it is unclear to me if the source you added at the end of the "definition" section covers all of the information in the paragraph. If not, it would be a good idea to add some references so that we know where you got your information from. Again, excellent draft! Don't hesitate to write back to me if you have any questions on my comments. Arielle ABBslp (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Arielle. I'm happy that you have reviewed my article. I really like the suggestion of adding a prepubescent frequency range as a comparative point. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find one from a reputable source yet but I'll keep looking. Additionally, I have duplicated the citation in the "definition" section so that it's clear that it covers the whole paragraph. Thanks again for your great review! Jogruber (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Stacey's Peer Review
Hi Joanna!

I think you've done a great job on this article. I like that you've kept a nice, neutral tone, and you've written about technical things but still made it very clear and straightforward. You've given a good overview of the topic, and included lots of links to the relevant definitions for things.

One suggestion I might put forth would be to consider moving the 3rd paragraph about puberphonia to the top and use it as the opening part of your introduction since it makes a nice topic sentence.

Also, it's really nit-picky, but when you're talking about the different variants, I'd be tempted to change the word "during" to "over", so that it reads " A second variant can occur when the mutation during puberty occurs over an extended period of time." I can't really explain why, so maybe it's just a personal preference. (And please feel free to ignore any of my suggestions!)

Finally, you have a good number of links, but there are a few more you could include, like semitones or falsetto, for example.

Overall, it's a really clear and understandable article. Nice work, Joanna!StaceyG124 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stacey! Thanks for your review, it's been very helpful in my editing! I have moved the paragraph about puberphonia to the top and re-named it the Lead section. I also have made the copyediting changes and have added some more hyperlinks. Thanks for pointing everything out! Jogruber (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Nicole
Hi Johanna

I think you did a great job in professional writing that accommodate both professional and general readers. You also provide sufficient citations to support your claims. You're responsive to peer's comments. Great job overall!

Nicole