User talk:SarahJay/sandbox

Peer Review- Karen

Your contributions are very meaningful, and seem important to the topic. Everything is clearly organized and well cited. In the causes section, I suggest deleting the phrase "research has shown" and rewording the phrase "It is believed however" in order to sound more formal. I have never heard of 'breaking of the voice' before; is there another way it can be described? The syntax of the last sentence of the Audiovisual Feedback section could be reworded. (It alternates between sounding like a list to sounding like an ordered progression). Lastly, the last sentence of the Surgery section has a typo. Really good work!! -Kjbatch (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm realizing other students did a much higher quality review than I did earlier so I found some more to include: You describe one type of surgical treatment as "Relaxation Thyroplasty". Is "Relaxation Thyroplasty by a medical approach" a different type of treatment? I'm a bit confused by the distinction in the names. Maybe "medical approach" could be capitalized as well? Or maybe the first one could be called "Traditional Relaxation Thyroplasty" when it is first introducted? Or maybe italicize the names? As for formatting that section, I might consider combining the three surgical treatments into one paragraph, or have them each be a separate paragraph (Traditional thyroplasty would be a new paragraph after the intro to surgical treatments). -Kjbatch (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Thanks for reading my article Karen. I will definitely change the wording of "it is believed however" and review some of the descriptions. I've also made the changes to the typo. Good idea on italicizing the names, it might help make things much clearer. I'll also go check out whether I meant different things by relaxation thyroplasty and relaxation thyroplasty by a medical approach - I don't think so, but I'll double check. Thanks for catching those errors :) SarahJay (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review- Sara P.

Your sources are well-cited and varied, and I can't find any claims in your section that are uncited. All the information you include in the article is relevant and illuminating. Well done. I noticed that you capitalized puberphonia every time you wrote it in the article, and I wonder whether that is standard practice or not (it might very well be! I'm not sure). In the Causes section, I would reword "It is believed that..." to something a little bit more formal. I see that you wrote your Causes section as a bulleted list - I think that the article would read more "encyclopedia-like" if these two lists were reworded as paragraphs. Since I know a little bit about puberphonia, I can follow and understand your list, but I think that it might be a bit too simplified for the layperson to really understand. For example, how exactly does "excessive maternal protection" play into puberphonia? Is this a believed cause of puberphonia, or has it simply been correlated with puberphonia? etc. Each of the points you include is definitely relevant - but I do think that they should all be elaborated upon. Also, consider linking internally to other Wikipedia articles. For example, there is probably a Wikipedia article on unilateral vocal fold paralysis - link to it. One more point about the Causes section: even though you say that psychogenic causes are believed to be the primary cause of puberphonia, I like how you go into biological causes as well. This ensures that this section of the article is unbiased, which is great.

In the Treatment section (Audiovisual feedback), I think the section would flow more smoothly if you first defined audiovisual feedback, describe what it entails, and then talk about how it is effective for people with puberphonia. (In other words, though your first sentence in this section is important, I don't think it's in the right place in the paragraph). I think your Surgery section flows more nicely, however I don't really understand Window Relaxation Thyroplasty. Maybe a sentence or two could be added to clarify what this is a little better.

I like all of your sources. They are recent, reliable sources, and are cited appropriately. My only comment here is that you cite Remacle, Marc; Matar, Nayla (2010). "Relaxation Thyroplasty for Mutational Falsetto Treatment" a lot in the Surgery section; I wonder if you could include another source here to ensure that the section does not become biased.

Nicely done. Sara with no h (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reading my article, Sara. You made a lot of excellent points. I'll definitely take them into consideration as I edit my draft. I had completely forgotten about linking to other pages- I will be doing that right away. I'm still debating about changing from a list to a paragraph - unfortunately there is very little literature on this topic and many of the causes have not even been elaborated on. I'll keep searching for more information. I will also consider re-ordering my audiovisual feedback section in treatment. Thanks again! SarahJay (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review - Nick

Nice and straight forward. I have some notes on formatting:

I think the bullet points are fine. They quickly convey the necessary information.
I don't think the sections should be underlined. They are headers, just smaller. For a main header you would surround it by '=='. For each subsequent, smaller header just add an extra sign (e.g. '===') to each side.
For the last point in the second list, maybe it should be 'Non-fusion'.
Reference #8 is incomplete.

The other reviewers covered the rest.

Kengjalrnvjwngj (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Thanks for reading my article Nick. I agree about the sections being underlined - they definitely should just be bolded and not underlined. Thanks for catching those mistakes SarahJay (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Nicole

Hi Sarah

Great job! You had contributed many useful citations and resources to the article. The writing is also neutral and accessible to most readers. You are also responsive to your peer's comment. One thing I am not very sure is if italic should be used for "relaxation thyroplasty".

Nicole