User talk:Slpintraining/sandbox

Hi Slpintraining,

Overall, good work! Your section includes clear language and nice links to other wiki pages that users can go to if they need more information. My comments are separated by bullets, but they seem to disappear when I post this to you, so apologies about that in advance.

Misc. comments (in order of your section):

- For the first sentence, I'd take out "each with different goals in mind" -- unless you elaborate on it. Otherwise letting the second sentence end with how the medical Hx can inform the diagnostic approach taken is clear enough!

- I'd link SLP to the SLP page!

- GRBAS and CAPE-V - unpack these acronyms the first time you use them. I know you go on to explain the five dimensions of GRBAS, but it probably won't be clear to readers that that is what is stands for :)

- I like that you define asthenia with brackets - can you do the same for "grade"? You could also link breathiness here (redirects to murmur, but explains the phonation).

- good simplified explanation of stroboscopy! (and later, EMG, too).

- it might help with clarity to add a couple words to this sentence (I put them in square brackets!) :: "Breathing tests (spirometry, body plethysmography) are used to measure [THE] impairment of respiratory flow through the larynx, particularly in patients with bilateral [VOCAL FOLD] paralysis.

- EMG sentence: "larynx" muscles --> "laryngeal" muscles

- "allows [FOR] better differentiation between..."

- can you explain neural lesion? (it took me until last year to understand it!).

- can you make two sentences from the current EMG sentence? It might be easier to digest that way.

- The sentence where you say the "larynx EMG can, within limits,..." could flow better from the previous sentence by starting with a "For example" -- since it is an example of what you mentioned!

- I might add something like "[While] patients with a poor chance of healing..." and then collapse the sentence after by saying "...not all medical centres have access to it".

- The last sentence refers to the treating physician -- maybe it should be clarified who can do this type of EMG imaging, since you start the section by identifying the SLP as an involved healthcare professional!

• • • Again, overall great work. I can tell that you put a lot of thought into making the material accessible to your audience. Feel free to contact me with any questions, and of course, these are suggestions. - JR Yvrslp2b (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Second Peer Review

Hello classmate! I just want to start out by saying that your part is very informative and well researched (great job finding so many references!). I also liked that you linked relevant terms to other wiki articles, and your sections are laid out nicely.

Here are my suggestions regarding possible edits:

At the beginning of your part, you mention that there are a "a variety of ways to diagnose vocal fold paralysis". I think it would be helpful to list what these ways are straight away so that the reader knows what he will be reading about. I think it would also be helpful if you created a subsection title for each method you talk about (otherwise it could be a bit hard to find the info someone is looking for).

You then go on to talk about voice diagnostics and voice assessment: these terms are not clearly defined (are they perceptual measures? objective measures? both?).

As previously stated by your first peer reviewer, it would be a good idea to mention what CAPE-V and GRBAS stand for upon the first mention, then you can use the acronyms. I would also describe to the reader that these 'scales' are clinical tools that are used to describe the severity of perceptual attributes voice problems. I noticed there are no references in this section. Are you sure the S-LP is the only professional who conducts these tests? If not, perhaps clinician would be a better term.

Make sure that the term 'judgment' is spelled correctly (there is no 'e')

Finally, i would take out the term 'unfortunately' in the second to last sentence, as it implies that this is your opinion.

Overall, great work, your article is very informative and generally accessible to the public. Meredithhoo (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)