User talk:Rileyerine/sandbox

Megan George's peer review

Hi Erin,

Great draft so far! I think you have a great neutral tone and your writing style sounds professional.

As you aren't working on the lead section in your draft, I don't have any comments on that. In terms of structure, I think the sections of your draft are labelled appropriately and the organization makes sense to me. In terms of coverage, I think you have very balanced sections, which I'm sure will be even more balanced when your contribution is merged with those of your teammates). I especially liked your Physical Characteristics section, as this really helped to give me an idea of what I would be expecting when looking for a contact granuloma. I didn't notice any instances of bias in your draft, and everything seems to be cited from reliable sources. Below, I've listed some of my copyediting suggestions.

The first sentence of your Physical Characteristics section, under the Diagnosis heading, reads, "Contact granulomas can be physically identified and diagnosed via the identification of the presence of proliferative tissue originating from the vocal process of the arytenoid cartilage." In this sentence, you have the root "identify" twice in close proximity. I think this sentence would be read more smoothly if this was reworded to eliminate one of the "identify" instances. Additionally, if this is the first mention of arytenoid cartilage, you could include a hyperlink to the Wikipedia page on that!

The first sentence of your Steroids section, under the Treatment heading, reads, "The application of corticosteroids to treatment contact granulomas..." The word "of" appears to be missing between "treatment" and "contact" or "treatment" could be changed to "treating" here. Later in that section, you have a sentence which reads, "When employed, it is usually used in conjunction with antibiotics for pain relief and the reduction of inflammation related to the granuloma." I would probably opt for a parallel structure here to avoid ambiguity, as it currently isn't clear if steroid treatment is used in the reduction of inflammation or if steroid treatment is used with antibiotics for pain relief and reduction of inflammation.

The last sentence in your Botox section, under the Treatment heading, reads, "Botox injection is considered a more extreme approach to resolving contact granuloma." I think this is a great piece of information to include; however, it is somewhat redundant as you have a sentence earlier that implies this ("...is generally only pursued when the case has been resistant to other treatments"). Perhaps you can join these two sentences in one section (e.g., "Botox is considered a more extreme approach to resolving contact granuloma AND is only pursued when the case has been resistant to other treatments").

The first sentence in your Epidemiology section reads, "Over all posited aetiologies..." This may be just a preference thing for me, but a different first word might be more clear here, such as "across". I feel like some readers could get confused with "over all" because of the commonly used adverb "overall".

I really hope these suggestions help! If you have any questions, you can ask me on my Talk page or talk to me in class.--Meggeo (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your peer review, Megan! It was very helpful. I especially appreciate that you introduced me to the concept of parallel sentence structure, which I'd never seen explicitly expressed before in those terms, and I hadn't considered that source of syntactic ambiguity. Rileyerine (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by Jdavid06

Hi Rileyerine!

Great job on your article, I enjoyed reading your draft! Your writing style is good, it sounds neutral and you present the facts clearly and concisely. Here are some of my comments for potential improvements:

In your Physical Characteristics section, the language is a bit technical. I think you could either explain the terms a bit more, or link to external pages to better orient the readers.
I think you gave a good concise description of the treatments, but I was a bit unclear what is currently the most common treatment (if this applies). I’m not sure how well this fits with your topic, but it might be helpful to talk about any of the “other treatments” you mention under the Botox injection section.
In the beginning of the Steroids section, you say this treatment is “considered a more extreme approach”, and I thought you presented that viewpoint in an appropriate way, however it might help to give some context because it isn't mentioned here what the treatment is being compared to so that leaves it a bit ambiguous.

Jdavid06 (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your peer review, Jessica! It gave me a lot to think about for the stage of transferring my contributions to the live article, i.e. how it will integrate with existing content and the other contributors' content. I'll be keeping these perspectives in mind. Thanks for taking the time to read over my additions. Rileyerine (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Nicole

Hi Erin

Good job as a first time wikipedia editor. The information you contributed to the article is valuable. The writing can be improved in terms of precision. For example, "The injection of botulinum neurotoxin A... when the case has been resistant to other treatments", it will help readers understand better what "other treatments" you're referring to.

Also, when you talked about steriods, you mentioned it as a "more extreme" approach. Not sure the word "extreme" is a good word here as it is difficult to quantify the degree of "extreme-ness" in medical term.

Nicole