User talk:Lisakuil/sandbox

Johanna's peer review
Wow, you wrote a lot! All of the information that you added is important and you managed to provide clear explanations. You also used a lot of great references and all of your claims are well cited.

Lead section: I don’t think the sentence about heartburn being the primary symptom is needed (since it’s also not that common). Maybe you could leave that for the signs and symptoms section since you mention it there too.

Signs and symptoms section: The two symptoms described in the last sentence of the signs and symptoms section “LPR may also result in sinusitis and difficulty breathing” could just be added to the list of symptoms outlined in the first paragraph to increase the flow of the article.

Treatment section: In addition to the hyperlink you gave, I would explain a little bit about what proton pump inhibitors are because most people reading this article would have no idea. In addition, you could explain a bit about what pepsin is and how it's linked to LPR in the first paragraph (“Some studies have pointed to a larger role of pepsin…”). You have a great sentence at the end of the second Treatment paragraph ("The study outlines the role of digestive enzyme pepsin…”) that could maybe be moved to the beginning in order to introduce the subject and explain what pepsin is. Also, I think a citation is missing and replaced by “Gaviscon Advanced” in the first paragraph.

I hope this is helpful and clear! If not just ask me in class or on my talk page.Jogruber (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jo!! :) Lisakuil (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Stacey's Peer Review
Hi Lisa!

I think you did a fantastic job on your contribution to this article. I found your additions very clear and well written - and they join seamlessly with what was already there. Your tone remained completely neutral throughout and I liked that your citations included a systematic review which is important when editing medical articles.

As for suggestions for improvements, I don't have very many!

First, in your initial paragraph, you refer to muscle tension dysphonia as "a hyper functional technique used due to the inflammation." I feel like maybe this makes it sound like a method the patient deliberately uses, but I think you probably mean it's used in reaction to the inflammation, right? It might be hard to find another word to replace "technique", so maybe you could say "a hyper functional technique adopted in reaction to the inflammation"? Or maybe I've misunderstood the message - feel free to ignore this comment, if so!

Secondly, you've already got several links in your section, but I think you could include some more (e.g. signal to noise ratio, fundamental frequency, etc.) so that people can easily find out what those terms mean. (I have to do this to my article, too!)

And finally, I think you could remove the period from the end of your quotation about LPR in your first paragraph since the sentence carries on after it's complete.

That's all I've got. Overall, a really nice job, Lisa!StaceyG124 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Stacey!! :) Lisakuil (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Megan's Peer Review
Hi Lisa! I read your section today, and here are my thoughts:

I love the tone of the sections that you wrote. They are informative and the text truly reads like an encyclopedia article. Your contribution included a lot of novel information!

Here are some of the things I would consider changing:

The hyperlink in "aero-digestive tract" is a bit misleading – is there something you can that talks about the pharyngeal area more generally? Additionally, if there is a page for hoarseness, that might be a useful hyperlink to include.

I might reword the sentence that describes compensatory hyperfunction in the larynx to the hoarseness. Perhaps splitting the sentence into two discrete thoughts (Patients try to compensate for the hoarseness by increasing their muscular tension / This can lead to a condition…) could help it flow more smoothly.

The middle paragraph of the treatment section reads a lot more like a persuasive essay than it does an encyclopedia article. I know that it wasn’t written by you, and that you just added more detail in some places (which is good), but honestly it might just be better to scrap that paragraph as a whole and replace it with a sentence or two that say “Some recently-emerging research suggests that dietary changes may be sufficient...” at the end of the paragraph before. This would incorporate the information and keep the word count of your contribution roughly the same while not giving a viewpoint perpetuated by a single study a disproportionate amount of airtime on a medical article, where systematic reviews/meta-analyses/textbooks are preferred sources. Overall, it is a real mismatch from your writing style in the parts that follow and I think your stuff is better than what was originally there.

Overall, I think your contribution is great!

Thanks Megan!! :) Lisakuil (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Nicole
Hi Lisa

Wonderful job! Exceeds my expectation. You definitely contributed great resources to the article. Also, your writing is professional and accessible to wide audience. You're also responsive to your peer's comments. Great job.

nicole