User talk:Chelsea.osei/sandbox
Arielle's Peer Review
[edit]Hi Chelsea, I'm peer reviewing your draft, I hope this is ok with you! First, I wanted to compliment you for your great work. I think you're adding very pertinent information to the article. You organize your information and your sections very clearly and your writing is very neutral. I did notice a few things that you might want to modify. For example, I feel like you are missing some citations. I'm thinking it's because you include them at the end of your paragraphs. However, I feel like it might be clearer for a reader if you mention those sources earlier on, so we know where you got your information from. Also there was one phrase at the beginning of your "causes" section that I don't really understand ( "Some patients may have injuries resulting from multiple factors, while some patients may have their own unique profile"). I'm not sure what you mean by that, you might want to clarify this sentence. Lastly, you might want to link the expression "modal voice" to its Wikipedia page, so that a reader could refer to it if he's not familiar with that concept. That's it! And again great job! Arielle ABBslp (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Megan's Peer Review
[edit]Hi Chelsea! I read your stuff, and I learned a lot about contact granuloma! Thanks for contributing this to the article. I think this draft was well-written.
However, I did notice a few things that you may want to change while I was reading it, mostly about the citations:
Formatting: you seem to have accidentally included one reference twice in your bibliography!
Citations 1: it seems as though several of the studies you cited are at evidence level 2 (based on Asha's guidelines) or lower. Wikipedia prefers the use of systematic reviews and textbooks as sources, so it may be helpful to see if there is evidence from a textbook or review article that supports the same claims that you make in this section, or if they support something different. I know that for my article I needed to rely heavily on textbooks because of a dearth of systematic reviews, so that may be useful to you.
Citations 2: in the first paragraph of the second section, there is no citation! It would be useful to include one there so that readers know where the information is coming from.
Finally, I think that there are a couple of opportunities to make the language more suitable for a layman: specifically, when you talk about adductive forces you could perhaps more clearly indicate that the closing IS the adduction, rather than being caused by the adduction.
Overall, I really like your draft! You did not push for any specific viewpoint, and you included a lot of pertinent material to your subject area.
Peer Review - Nick
[edit]I like the information you have.
1. More citations. You make some claims such as the following which I believe should be cited.
- ’Patients with more severe granulomas may also experience an "aching" or "stabbing" sensation in the throat and pain in the ears.’
- ’Contact trauma can occur when a person frequently speaks at a pitch that is lower than their modal voice, especially in vocally-demanding positions like acting, teaching and singing’
2. References 5 and 6 are the same.
3. I think ‘mechanical issues’ and ‘inflammatory issues’ should have their own sub headers. Just surround them with 3 equal signs (e.g. ‘===‘). Kengjalrnvjwngj (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Chloe's peer review
[edit]Hello Chelsea.osei,
Great work here. Your writing is clear and to the point - great "wiki" style you got going on. You have a reliable amount of sources here to back you up. That's super dandy.
Some things I saw when reading you can consider for edits:
Since the first sentence in the 'causes' section is on a separate line from the rest of the section, it might be handy to put a citation at the end of it just to make it super duper clear where it came from.
in your next section, when you start to talk about inflammatory issues, I would add a reference back to what you are talking about, so instead of "inflammatory issues..." you may say "inflammatory issues associated with contact granuloma...."
And finally just a weeny teeny thing, when you say "researcher believe..." near the end of your work, I may be inclined to switch the word "believe" to something like "reported" or "has found" in order to avoid any assumption that it is a biased belief of the researchers.
Overall, grand work here. Your contributions to this page are well noted and important, making a difference in the world of Wikipedia. Cheers.
Feedback from Nicole
[edit]Hi Chelsea
Great job! Your writing is effective and concise. You are also responsive to your peer's comments. I also like the way that you put out the disagreement re the inflammatory cause of contact granuloma.
nicole