User talk:Jennamackay/sandbox

Lisa's Peer Review

Hi Jenna! I really like how you have re-worked your sections so far! I also like how you have hyperlinked certain topics!

One thing I would suggest is in the 'Transmission' section of you article. You list oral sex as being implicated in transmission, however when you continue on in the paragraph, it seems more of a "sure thing". As in, there are either two options - it is transmitted through oral sex or it activates the already existing virus. This implies that oral sex does cause transmission while your previous sentence says that it is just implicated, so I would just clarify this! :)

Additionally, I think I would switch a couple sentences around in the first paragraph of your 'Transmission' section. Instead of "The mode of transmission is found to differ depending on age; the disease is typically separated based on whether diagnosis was before 12 years of age (juvenile form) or after 12 years of age (adult form)." I would say something like, "The disease is typically separated into two forms (i.e. juvenile and adult) based on whether diagnosis was before or after 12 years old."

In your second paragraph in the 'Transmission' section, I think I would adjust your first sentence to something like "In general, physicians are unsure why only certain people who have been exposed to HPV types 6 and 11 develop laryngeal papillomatosis." (but this is more of a stylistic change so, up to you!).

Your prevention section is very well done! I would only change "not much is known" in your first line of the second paragraph to "little is known". This seems a bit more formal.

Great job so far!! :) Lisakuil (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey's Peer Review

Hi Jenna,

I think you did a great job on this article! It's clear and well written. It covers the topic well without being too technical, and your tone is neutral, which is excellent. I'll make couple of suggestions, but please feel free to disregard them. I'm certainly no Wikipedia expert.

I noticed one of your citations was a little older (1998), and I know when it comes to medical articles Wikipedia can be a little more strict in terms of how up-to-date the information is. On the other hand, I know there is not a wealth of information on some of these topics, so this may have been the best choice of the higher quality options at your disposal. If so, disregard this comment!

I also noticed that you have links to most of your definitions which is great - and something I have yet to do in my own article. If it's possible, I would recommend a link to bivalent, quadrivalent, and nonvalent since I don't think many people would know these words. (Possibly there isn't an option for that, though.)

And finally, in your second section, you've written a sentence "It therefore prevents both cervical cancer..." Based on what you read, should that say instead "It therefore helps prevent both cervical cancer..."? The way it's phrased it could be interpreted that the vaccine is 100% successful, but that may not have been what you intended to convey.

But altogether this article is really well done. I had to get pretty picky to even find this much to say. StaceyG124 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura's Peer Review

Hello! Your two sections are looking really good! The material you have written is in a neutral voice and also pertinent to the overall topic. The things I think could be improved are pretty specific since overall you've a very good job.

The following sentence in your Transmission section could be rephrased to be a bit more clear and concise: "The following risk factors have been identified that result in a higher likelihood of transmission at childbirth: if they are the mother’s first-born, if the child was born vaginally, if the mother is a teenager."
Near the end of the Transmission section, the statistic "between 1 in 231-400" could be reformulated. I find that this phrasing sounds a bit odd as I assume it means 1 in 231 to 1 in 400, but this may just be my lack of familiarity with the format! — Evans310 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Nicole

Hi Jenna

Very well written. Your writing is professional. You did a great job to pull limited information and present it in an effective way. You're also responsive to your peer's comments. Good job.

Nicole