User talk:Meggeo/sandbox

Chelsea's peer review

Hi Meggeo!

Great work! Your section looks very well researched. Very nice use of hyperlinks to other pages for more complex terms.

Vocabulary in the second paragraph of signs & symptoms is a little bit complex. Consider placing a description in parentheses or substituting to a simpler word for “acrid”. Perhaps hyperlinking to “bile” and placing a mini description (e.g. “yellowish brown fluid”) in parentheses following it would be helpful.

The background section appears to lose its neutrality towards the end with Pellegrini & DeMeester. “Were the first to” and “They proved that” makes it kind of come off that the article praises their work. I think you can scrap these phrases and be a bit more general.

That’s all from me. Nicely done! :) Chelsea.osei (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna's Peer Review

Hi Meggeo! :)

This is a very good draft! I think it's great that you took the initiative to cover so many different sections of the "Laryngopharyngeal reflux" article. The parts that you have added in italics are very well written, seem to have been heavily researched and free from any bias. You remain neutral and have a very good and academic way of writing. The following copyedit suggestions are for both the parts that you have added in italics as well as the whole sections that you have chosen to work on (I am assuming you are independently in charge of these sections, while your partners are working on others?):

In the intro, the additional terms for "Laryngopharyngeal reflux" are introduced by saying also ___, I would suggest changing this to also known as ___ to avoid any confusion.
I am not sure who "Bray" is in the sentence "... Bray suggested a link between gut symptoms and airway disease", I know that this is not a part that you wrote but I checked the article and your sandbox and it seems as though this was added in without a reference in the article. I would therefore suggest either finding the correct reference for this (by contacting the original Wikipedian who posted it or researching it yourself) or removing this sentence to avoid re-posting something that is not backed up.
Again, I know that this is not a part that you added, but perhaps consider changing "proved" in the sentence "They also proved that treatment of reflux disease..." to "confirmed" before making your edits to this section live.
In the last few sentences that you added to the "Relationship to GERD" section, you have presented some new technical terms, consider adding hyperlinks, e.g. stratified squamous epithelium, respiratory epithelium"

Again, you did a really great job at editing these parts of the Laryngopharyngeal reflux article, and it was certainly a big job researching and editing all of these sections!

- Jennamackay (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Nicole

Hi Meagan

Excellent job! Your contribution is well beyond my expectation, Meagan. They are very well sourced. Also, your writing is professional and accessible to the wide audience. You showed excellent skills to integrate complex information and critical thinking. Very well done.

nicole