User talk:Jaslyn.Dunger/sandbox

Peer Review from KDMansfield

Hi Jaslyn.Dunger,

Great work updating the article! Looking at the previous article, you've been able to add some really good information that was missing before. Overall, I found the article to be clear, concise, and easy to read. You also did a good job of balancing the content of the material (i.e., providing an appropriate level of detail, providing explanations where necessary).

In terms of possible revisions, I was thinking it might be worth clarifying the components to a diagnosis in a bit more detail. You explained the imaging portion well, so that is great! I guess I am thinking it might be good to clarify whether all four must be completed, if a combination can you used, and if there is a set order to the components. You wrote "when a diagnosis cannot be reached via behavioural intervention, the patient undergoes a videostroboscopy", so I was unsure of whether the perceptual is completed first and then imaging (when a diagnosis cannot be reached) or both must be completed to provide converging evidence.

As for the prognosis section, the only thing I think of would be to add whether or not the voice generally does return back to its "normal" functioning (i.e., whether post-treatment outcomes are successful). I am sure this is on a case-by-case basis, but did it mention in the literature the standard time needed for vocal recovery (a few weeks vs. a few months)?

Once again, great article!

KDmansfield (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)KDMansfield

Hey KDMansfield, thanks for the feedback! I believe that the components are on an as-needed basis, so I can clarify this a bit definitely. My understanding is that behavioural therapy can be done when initial concerns are noted, and if it doesn't help or there is no change, the next step is for the pt to undergo imaging. Great point about the prognosis, I'll do my best to find out and include that info. Thanks! SLPJaslyn (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from GinnyMae

Hi Jaslyn.Dunger,

Really great work on the Vocal Fold Cysts article! I found your sections well-structured and easy to read, and I also think you've made each section a good length - long enough to give adequate information but not so long that the reader gets bogged down in detail. It looks like you have chosen some excellent sources, although I had some trouble figuring out the citations, i.e. which sources from your working bibliography had actually been cited? Usually when you click on the citation number, it highlights the reference entry, but that feature doesn't seem to be working in your sandbox so I couldn't tell. Some of the sources look like they could be a bit out of date (1983, 1990) but maybe those aren't the ones you are citing.

I was thinking that maybe at the beginning of the Diagnosis section, you could briefly redefine the two types of cyst (mucous retention and epidermoid), or else redirect the reader back to the lead section where it is explained? I don't even know if that's necessary to do or not, since it has already been defined, but if they were skimming and missed that part, they might be confused when the two different kinds are discussed.

I also had a question about the sentence "This procedure [laryngeal videostroboscopy] provides information about vibrations during speech..." - does this refer to vocal fold vibrations specifically, rather than say air vibrations? It might be helpful to specify since it might not be obvious to all readers.

Then finally, for the Prognosis section, I thought the last paragraph might require adding a few more citations (right now there is just one, for the first sentence.)

Again, great work, I enjoyed reading your article sections!

GinnyMae (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi GinnyMae! The citations have been giving me a headache - I'm hoping to have it figured out when we transfer the information to the article! I'll add in a note redirecting to the lead section about the types of vocal cysts, good idea. And yes, it is vocal fold vibrations! I was trying not to be too technical, but you're right in that I should clarify this. I believe for the last paragraph, it just worked out that all the information was from one source; I might leave this one up to future reviewers to fix up ;) thanks for the feedback! SLPJaslyn (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)