User talk:Meagan.Honigman/sandbox

Hi Meagan.Honigman

Your article is looking good! I like how you organized things and the information is very complete. I have a few suggestions of minor things you can edit:
 * The sentence "these causes can range from vocal abuse and misuse, to pathologic changes from inflammatory processes, to systemic diseases" is a bit long and confusing because of the "ranging from... to... from..." structure. Maybe you can reword it using parentheses "these causes can range form vocal abuse and misuse to pathologic changes resulting from inflammatory processes or systemic diseases.


 * Under the "Clinical Aspect" heading, there is an "s" missing after "measure" (involves the use of both objective and subjective measure)


 * Under the "Auditory Perceptual Measures" section, the following sentence should be edited: evaluate the quality of a voice, due to it's quick and non-invasive nature --> evaluate the voice quality, due to its quick and non-invasive nature.


 * For the sentence " The GRBAS (Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain) and the CAPE-V (Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation—Voice) are two formal voice rating scales most commonly used for this purpose.", do you have a citation for this? Do we know for sure these are the most commonly used rating scales?


 * You could simplify the sentence "Vocal fold imaging techniques are used by clinicians to examine the vocal folds so as to be able to detect vocal pathology, as well as to assess the quality of the vocal fold vibrations" to "Vocal fold imaging techniques are used by clinicians to examine vocal folds and allow to detect vocal pathology and assess the quality of the vocal fold vibrations".

Overall, the article seems clear and complete. Good work!

Kathytheslp (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thanks for your suggestions and for catching those mistakes. I will definitely make sure to fix the mistakes you pointed out and try to re-word some sentences! Meagan.Honigman (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Your contributions to the article look great so far! I love how you have coherently organized your sections, and your have a very balanced, neutral stance in your writing. I also like that you have a variety of good quality sources, and you have linked to multiple different wikipedia articles, which will make it easy for readers to find more information about the topics you have brought up.

My only suggestion would be to add brief descriptions to the 5 categories of causes you have listed (before you provide the links to the specific topics). Maybe just add one or two sentences to orient your readers to the general meaning so they have some context before they click the links you have listed below. Other than that, everything looks great! I learned a lot from reading your article.

Slpintraining (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thank you for your suggestion. I had thought about doing that, but wasn't really sure how to go about it because the categories are so broad and not really defined in the literature (i.e. they explain the specific cases in each category but not the category itself. I will see what I can come up with for some sort of short explanation! Meagan.Honigman (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)