User talk:KDmansfield/sandbox

Peer review from GinnyMae
Hi KDmansfield,

Really great work on the Dysphonia article! I found your sections very readable and easy to understand, and it looks like you have chosen excellent sources. I especially liked your explanation of the mechanism of phonation - I think you struck a good balance between including enough detail and keeping it simple and easy to read.

A few questions/comments I had when reading your sections are:

- Under Mechanism, when you say "Overall, dysphonia is complex and can result from several underlying etiologies" - will this lead into the section in the existing article on "Associated conditions"?

- I think the first paragraph in the Prevalence section might need a couple more citations added (I'm assuming, for example, that the citation at the end of the paragraph applies to the second sentence referencing the study with 55 million patients, but that might not be immediately clear?)

- I'm not sure what the protocol is for lead sections as I haven't yet done any work on the lead section for my article, but I think it would be good to add some citations to that section as well.

- Finally, I was thinking the first sentence in the Mechanism section could maybe be simplified a bit. Something along the lines of the following might be easier to read: "The larynx (also known as the voice box), is a structure made up of several supporting cartilages and ligaments which is located in the anterior portion of the neck. The larynx houses the vocal folds... [briefly define/describe what the vocal folds are.]"  Totally your call though!

Again, great work, I enjoyed reading your article sections!

GinnyMae (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer review from Daniellelp
Hi KDmansfield,

Great job so far on your contributions to the article on Dysphonia! Each section is well-organized, and you've explained the concepts very well. I especially like where you've provided common layman's terms (e.g. "voice box" for larynx). Your reference list seems very strong overall, but I would be careful about including primary sources (e.g. Cohen et al., 2012). Also, there are a few sentences missing citations, particularly in the "Prevalence" and "Lead" sections. Finally, I would just be mindful of some technical terms that could be further simplified (e.g. "etiologies" --> "causes" in the "Mechanism" section, as well as "innervation" --> "nerve supply" or something along those lines). Overall, you've started off with a lot of great work on this article! Kudos and keep it up :)

Daniellelp (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review
Hi GinnyMae and Daniellelp! Thank you for your positive comments and feedback. I have taken your suggestions and integrated them into the final article. I have added additional citations where mentioned (including the lead section). Furthermore, I have simplified the language a bit more. For the vocal folds, instead of providing an explanation, I link the term to the corresponding wiki article! Thanks again for all of the helpful feedback! KDmansfield (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)KDmansfield