User talk:Mil.sch/sandbox

Megan George's peer review

Hello,

I think you have a great draft so far! Your explanations seem appropriate for a general audience and your tone throughout remains academic.

As you don't seem to be working on the article's lead section in your draft, I don't have any specific comments on that. However, one general comment that could be addressed by your group as a whole is the current article's initiating statement, which reads, "Voice therapy, also known as speech therapy..." I feel like speech therapy has a broader connotation than simply voice therapy and I found this to be slightly confusing.

In terms of structure, I think you have labelled all your sections appropriately and I think they will contribute to the development of a more cohesive article once you've moved your draft to the main page. I especially liked the way you walked through the "Voice therapy with prosthesis" in a step-by-step way. One thing I was uncertain about was whether "Voice therapy with prothesis" is an elaboration of the third point in the list under the heading "Voice management after laryngectomy".

In terms of coverage, I think you chose really important information to include in your draft. To balance the coverage more, I think it would be useful to also provide more detailed information about options 1 and 2 in the list under the heading "Voice management after laryngectomy" (I'm saying this under the impression that your section entitled "Voice therapy with prosthesis" is an elaboration of only option 3 in that list). Disregard if your group members will be covering this! After reading, I was also curious about the specific strategies that would be recommended for friends and family members when communicating with a loved one who uses a ventilator or with a loved one who has undergone laryngectomy but does not use a ventilator.

I think you've done a great job of presenting everything in a really neutral, unbiased tone. One suggestion for your section "Other types of speech and language therapy after laryngectomy: Communication strategies" would be to make the person the agent of the sentence, "A Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP) can give the person tools and techniques to self-advocate during conversations, in order to ensure that they are given the space that they need to participate in conversation." I think this could avoid any potential for readers to interpret bias from only mentioning S-LP as a professional who could help with this and it would impart more active involvement of the patient in their treatment (e.g., The individual using a ventilator can use tools and techniques, such as those provided by an S-LP, to self-advocate..." That said, your article is "Voice therapy", which is primarily administered by S-LPs, so I understand the rational for the current sentence structure.

Finally, I believe everything you've included in your draft comes from reliable sources!

My only copyediting suggestion would be to pluralize the heading "Voice therapy with prothesis" by changing it to "Voice therapy with prostheses".

I hope these comments are helpful to you. If anything isn't clear, let me know on my Talk page or find me in class and I will try to explain my suggestions in more detail.--Meggeo (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara P.'s review

Nice article! I really like your tone throughout - what you wrote is understandable, academic, and neutral. Well done. All of the information is relevant and succinct.

All of your sections have a very logical flow and read very nicely. I really like the numbered list in the "Voice Management after Laryngectomy", but I also think that the paragraph in the "Voice therapy with prosthesis" is very clear and easy to follow, too.

With regards to your citations, they are definitely very reliable and recent. I would add some sources to the "Voice therapy with prosthesis" section, as it is mostly based on one source right now - that could introduce a bias into that section. The section "Other types of speech and language therapy after laryngectomy: Communication strategies" needs some citations - there aren't any right now. Also, the section reads as being a little biased to me. Although it absolutely is true that SLPs can provide certain services to people who have had laryngectomies, the section almost subtly recommends that patients go see an SLP. I would reword this section in such a way that it gives information about what services the SLP can offer without also encouraging the patient to see an SLP.

Overall, very nicely done. Sara with no h (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna's Peer Review"

Hi Mil.sch,

This draft is really well done! The sections that you have built upon and added are a great addition to the Voice therapy article, it shows that you have done a lot of research on this topic. You used a good academic and neutral tone throughout our sections. After reading what you have written I have come up with the following copyedit suggestions:

Consider moving your hyperlink for "voice prosthesis" to your first mention of it in the section above the "Voice therapy with prosthesis" section.
Consider re-wording the sentence "...significantly altering the person's speech abilities", replacing "speech abilities" with something like "ability to communicate orally, ability to use their voice, ability to speak, etc., as "speech abilities" from some perspectives (e.g. S-LP) implies articulation/phonology
In the sentence: "In some instances, the person may be able to block the tube with their fingers and breathe as they did before the surgery or attach a valve to their tube." it took me a while to understand what this valve was for, perhaps elaborate on this by continuing the sentence explaining what this valve does, or use a more specific name for the valve and hyperlink it.
Perhaps add a hyperlink in your first mention of ventilators.
Consider adding more of an introduction when you bring up ventilators near the end of your "Voice therapy with prosthesis" section, as I found there was not much of an explanation of what they are or why they were being brought up. Also consider moving this information about ventilators to the section below where you discuss them in more detail.
Add a hyperlink for S-LP :)

Overall I thought this was a really great draft and a much-needed addition to the "Voice therapy" article. Great job!! :)

- Jennamackay (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Nicole

Hi Milana

Great job. Your writing is neutral and professional. You explained the voice prosthesis pretty well as well. You're also responsive to your peer's comments. Nice.

Nicole