User:Friasal/Vestibular schwannoma/Lihuashu1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Friasal


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vestibular_schwannoma&diff=prev&oldid=1119641582
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vestibular_schwannoma&diff=prev&oldid=1120595120
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Vestibular schwannoma

Evaluate the drafted changes
Guiding questions:
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant and up to date. I like the added stats on overall mortality as well as breakdown of most common side effects. It's a bit surprising these items were not there to begin with.
 * You've also added in a number of citations that seemed to be missing, all of which are recent articles published in well-accredited journals.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I like the information about CRISPR. I think this is an important topic with potential implications in VS that needs to be discussed. I wonder if you would give some thought to expanding on this section a little bit? There are a lot of citations around "CRISPR has become the preferred genome editing tool," but I wonder if you could add in some information about what specific advancements or studies have been done with CRISPR to treat VS.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position
 * No, all of the added information is pretty straightforward and mostly represents facts/stats from published articles
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * The sources added, as far as I could tell, were all very current. They came from well-respected publications. I clicked on a few links, and they all worked by leading me to the proper article.
 * In the "incidence section", there is one citation from an article in 1991. I wonder if the information derived from this article could be removed, as there are much more contemporary epidemiology data on VS that probably could be added in.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Well-written. No grammatical errors I could appreciate. Avoided jargon as best as possible and explained terms (ex. angiogenesis) were necessary.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Yes, I believe the added content helps the reader. There were some confusing/historically outdated sections of the article that were removed. There were also some new studies that were added to better represent the nature of some medical therapies.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think a more robust and updated epidemiology section could be helpful, although it seems like there is one publication from 2019.
 * I would love to see more said about the advancements in CRISPR technology in the realm of VS therapy.