User talk:StaceyG124/sandbox

Sarah's Peer Review

Hey Stacey!

I think your draft is looking really good! You’ve used lots of great sources and have maintained a neutral voice in your writing. It’s also very interesting! I only noticed a few things that I would change. In your differential diagnosis section, I’d consider splitting the first sentence into two sentences. This is just a stylistic preference, but it might read better if you have a period after granuloma and then start with something like, “Accurate diagnosis aids in differentiating…”. If you keep it as one sentence, I’d recommend changing “will aid” to simply “aids”. Further, I would put a comma after “voice” in the line, “laryngoscopy, as well as an acoustic analysis of the voice, can help….”.

In your treatment overview section, I’d recommend checking whether antireflux is one or two words (it's showing up as incorrectly spelled on my computer). I’d also suggest changing some of your verbs from “can depend” or “could include” to simply “depends” and “includes”. Again, this is just stylistic preference, but I like the overall tone better when it's written like that. Or, you could change the sentence “a more aggressive treatment could include” to “more aggressive treatments include”. (up to you though!)

That’s it for me. I think everything sounds awesome and these are just picky details that don’t necessarily have to be changed. Let me know if you have any questions! SarahJay (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah! I've made a few of the changes you suggested. Great suggestions - thank you! It turns out antirefux appears both hyphenated about 25% of time in various online dictionaries, and as one word about 75% of the time, so I opted for the one-word version. Good thought, though! I like your suggestion of using active voice - I'll change that where I can - provided that it doesn't turn my statements into generalizations which may not be accurate. (See comments in Karens' section below). Thanks for your help, Sarah!

StaceyG124 (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review- Karen

Your additions are great! Everything seems very well-cited and the information is relevant to the topic. For the Treatment section, I suggest avoiding using the term "more aggressive". Maybe the word aggressive could get changed to invasive or intensive to sound more formal Also, by introducing it as "more", I expected that section of the article to be followed by a section about less aggressive treatment methods, which it did not. By avoiding that comparison term, it would be less misleading. Also, I think that usually the citation numbers are after the period of the sentence. These are just small changes; really great work! -Kjbatch (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm realizing other students did much more thorough reviews so I found some more ideas to help improve your articles! Below is one section of your contribution that I copied and pasted. The bolded sections and some subtle wording changes I might recommend considering in order to help make the article seem more formal, and less wordy.

Various methods are used to diagnose contact granuloma and aid in differentiating it from other vocal fold pathology[1] [3][4][5]. Laryngoscopy allows visualization of the suspected granuloma while also checking for signs of vocal abuse[1][5]. Laryngoscopy, as well as an acoustic analysis of the voice can rule out vocal fold paresis as an underlying cause[1][5]. Microscopic examination of the tissue can determine that the lesion is benign rather than cancerous, as would be the case in contact granuloma[5]. Laryngeal electromyography and reflux testing are other methods that can be used to evaluate the function of the vocal folds and determine if laryngopharyngeal reflux is contributing to the pathology[1]. -Kjbatch (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karen - great suggestions! I've left the "more aggressive" because I was actually contrasting it with the previous forms of treatment that are less aggressive, which I described as being used "initially". I'm not too worried about the formality of the word aggressive because that seems to be how they describe it in the medical literature - but I understand what you mean! I moved my citations to the other side of the periods - good catch!

I appreciate the input on the active writing - it's just that I'm trying not to make statements that are generalizations. For example, if I say "Laryngoscopy allows visualization of the suspected granuloma" rather than "can allow", I feel that it might not be an accurate statement. There may cases where laryngoscopy does not allow visualization, so I didn't think I should state it as a fact. Possibly I'm being overcautious though. But I've taken some of your suggestions for changes - thank you! StaceyG124 (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexie's peer review

Hi StaceyG124! Bravo for your wonderful draft. You included a lot of interesting sources and all statement are cited appropriately. The neutrality is maintained throughout the text. I think the differential diagnosis section is truly important in the description of contact granuloma and this addition will greatly contribute to the quality of the article.

Here are some elements that could be improved:

You could try to use a bit more the "links" function to link to other Wikipages such as for "laryngoscopy" or "laryngopharyngeal reflux".
I feel like a comma should be inserted between "(inhalant or injection) and injections of botulinum.." in the second section.
To continue one Karen's comment "Also, by introducing it as "more", I expected that section of the article to be followed by a section about less aggressive treatment methods, which it did not.", I would suggest to just reorganize the information in that section. As I understand it, "speech therapy", "vocal rest" and "antireflux medication" are the less agressive treatment methods you are referring too. To make the comparaison more obvious you could re-organize the information in this way : "Specific treatment for contact granuloma can depend on the underlying cause of the condition, but often initially includes a combination of speech therapy, vocal rest, and antireflux medication. In cases where contact granuloma is resistant (a condition called refractory contact granuloma), more agressive treatment approaches can be used such as steroids (inhalant or injection), injections of botulinum toxin, low dose radiotherapy, vocal fold augmentation or microlaryngeal surgery). Microlaryngeal surgery can be performed either via cold steel excision or various types of laser. The laser is more accurate and typically results in less damage to the surrounding tissue. The best outcomes appear to occur when a combination of treatments is used.
I also have a question that is not directly related to the improvement of your article but that could be relevant depending on your findings. I am wondering about laryngopharyngeal reflux. For the condition I am working on (Laryngeal Papillomatosis) sources say that its link with GERD is controversial. Is it the same thing with contact granuloma? Is the link clear or is it also controversial?

Once again, good work! Thank you for your great contribution :) --Axe30 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexie - I like your idea of putting the refractory statement earlier, but it gives the impression that the aggressive treatment is only used when the granuloma is refractory, which isn't the case. Aggressive approaches can really be used at any time. Good comment on the links - I'll add some! Thank you for your input - great suggestions!StaceyG124 (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishi's Peer Review

Hi StaceyG124! You had great input for this article which has been written in a neutral tone and concise manner. You have used several reliable references. My suggestions are:

- There appears to be an extra bracket after 'microlaryngeal surgery' in the last paragraph

- To better organize the treatments section, you could bullet point the list of treatment options and have a small description of each to better inform the readers. For example, I'm not sure what vocal fold augmentation or microlaryngeal surgery are.

Keep up the good work! Jozacha (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ishi - I couldn't find the extra bracket! But I'll try to include links to any of the things that seem confusing! Good suggestion! StaceyG124 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mila's Peer Review

Hi Stacey! Great contributions so far! They are clear and concise. I appreciate that they cover a number of topics but without going into too much detail on topics that are less crucial to the core of the article.

I'm wondering if it is necessary for you to cite the same two articles a number of times in a row or if you are allowed to cite them once at the end of the paragraph! Perhaps this is something to look into, just to increase the aesthetic of the paragraph.

I'd also encourage you to make more use of the hyperlink feature of Wikipedia (for example, "Laryngoscopy")

Also, just a heads up about this sentence "steroids (inhalant or injection)[3][4] injections of botulinum toxin" in which it appears as though you may have accidentally included the word "injection" twice!

Your conclusion is very clear and well-explained. It makes me consider adding a sentence to my own section about the possibility of combining approaches and how this may affect voice therapy.

Mil.sch (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Mil.sch[reply]

Mila - that's a great point about the citations - I actually frequently feel uncertain about how much of the previous text my citation might refer to. I'll definitely add some links - good suggestion! And that sentence with the two injections should actually have a comma which should make it more correct - hopefully! Thanks for your great suggestions! StaceyG124 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Nicole

Hi Stacey

Good job as a first time wikipedia editor. I share the same comments with your peers on the word of "agressive treatment" as this word doesn't sound neural and objective. It is difficult to define the degree of "agression" scientifically. Also, I am not sure if we can claim that laser is a more "accurate approach" -- and I don't see the citation to support this claim.

Nicole