Peer Review of your Sandbox

Hi Kat, I have reviewed your sandbox draft for the "Signs and Symptoms", and "Differential Diagnosis" sections of the vocal cord dysfunction article. Firstly, I liked that you used many sources, and that you cited all points. I also like that you kept a neutral tone to your draft, as the reader feels you are simply reporting facts, rather than convincing him to adhere to a particular view. It might be useful to link certain terms such as "dyspnea", medical conditions such as "asthma" and "angioedema", as well as the medications you list for the treatment of asthma. This will avoid you having to define these terms, and will provide extra information for your reader. There are a few edits I would suggest to make the information a bit easier to read (mostly just rearranging words). For instance, your first sentence might read something like this: "Many of the symptoms associated with vocal cord dysfunction are not limited to this disorder, as they may resemble a number of conditions that affect the upper and lower airway. Such conditions include…." Instead of "visits to the ER", you could say "hospitalization". When talking about the subtypes: "Different subtypes of vocal cord dysfunction are characterized by additional symptoms. For instance, …." And finally, perhaps reword the following sentence: "usually respond to the usual medication". Great information, I learned a lot! I think these small proposed changes will really help the reader navigate all this information. Meredithhoo (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Very good contributions to the article so far. I like that you added the signs and symptoms section, and your two sections are related and flow nicely together. Also, I think your sections are of an appropriate length for the article, providing enough information without being overwhelming. You also did a good job of presenting neutral content and citing a wide variety of quality sources. The two sections on your sandbox page are really well done.

I have a question for you and a follow-up suggestion: Is your sandbox article going to be added to the diagnosis section (keeping the information that is already there), or will you be removing the information in that section and replacing it with your sandbox article? If you are adding your information and not removing what is already there, I would suggest editing the existing content - adding proper citations, editing for style, etc. If you are replacing it, I would suggest incorporating some of the content that was there into your new section and editing it for style.

Well done!

Slpintraining (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meredithhoo and Slpintraining, Great feedback! I appreciate your input and will be applying the changes you suggested! Thank you Kathytheslp (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]