Talk:Vestibular rehabilitation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Quincyaray.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Emily Furlong's Peer Review: 1. What does the article (or section) do well?  The article is set up into sections that are clear, logical, and appropriate for the subject. The overall concept is defined well, and includes related topics such as training and effectiveness that contribute to the reader's overall perception of the term. I think that the writing is well done, sequential, and easy to understand. There is a good use of facts, sources, and studies that also contribute to a better understanding of the subject matter.

2. What changes would you suggest overall? What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? I think that the only major component that is missing from your article is a "related pages" section. I think that including a section with links to other related terms would prove useful to the reader. In terms of improvements or changes to what you have already written, I think that there is not much room for improvement. Your writing is concise, to the point, and is composed of directly stated facts. However, another addition you could make would be to add a picture of an example of a vestibular exercise. Lastly, there are a few issues with your sources in the citation section that I would ensure are fixed before publishing.

3. Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know! The main takeaways from your piece that I will apply to my own are: structure, flow, and facts. I think that your article is very well structured, which makes me consider taking another look at how I structured my own article. I think that I could definitely use some bullet points like you used in your "Treatment/Methods of Exercise" section in order to make the article an easier read. Secondly, there is a sequential flow to your article that I really appreciated as I was reading through it. The order of the sections is logical and makes clear sense. I think that I should reexamine the order of my own article's sections. Lastly, I think that you used facts very effectively. The "Effectiveness" section of your article is largely based on statistics, which adds a lot to the quality of your piece. I think I will consider more statistics and numbers in my own piece to increase quality and effectiveness.

Erica Su peer review What does the article (or section) do well? The organization of the article is done well, and there are a good number of sources

What changes would you suggest overall? In the treatments section, I personally think it might be more effective to change the bullet points into small sub-sections instead, just for clarity and separation.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? Though there might not be that many sources, it might help to include something about organizations outside of the US in the “training” section to provide more viewpoints.

Renakat123 (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)