User talk:Jenlorenzana/sandbox

The introductions was concise and gave a good overview; the story about the article was a nice touch as well as it gives background to the syndrome
I think the mechanism could use a little more information if available, maybe talk a little more about the dysphonia disorder a bit more in detail to explain how that works.
I think the cause section is straight to the point but I think explaining the causes would be more beneficial and then kind of connecting it to the syndrome you are talking about; namely when you talk about "speech and communication disorders,..." I think explaining that a bit more would be good.
In the diagnosis, including what a physician should expect to see when doing an imaging of the vocal cords in a patient of this syndrome would be a good inclusion and a bit more explanation on that

Smuq318 (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job with utilizing a lot of different sources and consistently citing them throughout the article, this helps with the credibility of the article.
For the sign and symptoms, consider possibly including if there are any variations in symptoms. For an example, do the sign and symptoms vary between sexes? Or, do the symptoms become more/less severe with age? This could possibly be included in a small paragraph before the list of symptoms.
I also believe that the mechanism can use more detail. Possibly include how this disorder impacts other body systems, other than the musculoskeletal system, if that information is available.
Consider including more in-text links for terms that others may not know, such as laryngoscope, video-stroboscope, or laryngeal electromyography in the diagnosis section.

Iolejniczak (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered including pictures of Bogart or Bacall? They're available on wikimedia.
Could use more links to other wikipedia articles.
Don't use second person. This is an article about a disease, not directed towards a patient. This also shows up in other phrasing like "it is important to understand". Watch for patient centered phrasing.
What are they looking for in the diagnostic imaging?
While there isn't a lot of recent research that uses the term, there is research that cites the paper and addresses the issues. Include that. Here's an example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0892199710000779
Citations of journal articles should use the journal article format.
Enter all citations through the citation manager. Some have not been formatted properly through that. If you need help with this, come see me.
14 is not a citation.
You have cited all sections thoroughly.

--Sweiner02 (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of positives elements: · You described and introduced your disease in an effective manner. · You had various in-text citations and about 16 sources, making your information more creditable and reliable. Some elements that could be improved. · I would consider adding more photos or moving your picture to the top of the article. This would be a good way to introduce your disease in a visual manner. · Your sections consists of very short paragraphs, I would consider adding more information to some sections. Specifically the mechanism section, I think that this section is lacking in some information and could use some revision. Additionally, I think that the research section could use more info. You could add the research done in the past, present, and future. · I would consider adding some bullet points to make the information more organized and structured. Also, it makes the article more visually pleasing and easier to follow along with. Caronavas1214 (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Caroline Navas[reply]

It would be beneficial if you added more context to you signs and symptoms section, instead of just simply stating the symptoms.
For the diagnosis section, I would consider explaining the the imaging options. For someone who is clueless about this condition, I would not know what those imaging options are.
It seems like you are missing more detail from your mechanism section. Perhaps, explain more in detail what some of the concepts mean to make it clearer for others.
Overall, this is a great presentation! I like how you made the majority of your project easy to understand and follow through.

Lzuniga04 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]