User:Sweetiepie9192/Leiomyosarcoma/Abennett97 Peer Review

General info
Sweetiepie9192
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * N/A
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Leiomyosarcoma

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I am not able to see the old article vs your new edits, so I am going off of your notes of your edit history. Per the history- "I edited the opening paragraph and took out some irrelevant/outdated citations. I edited the first paragraph for the "Mechanism" section. I added more things to the "Diagnosis" section and added proper citations which were missing before. I added a new section called "Uterine Leiomyomas vs. Uterine Leiomyosarcomas."

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Unfortunately it is hard for me to tell exactly what content was added
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, most citations are recent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The "notable cases" section has some sentences that seem kind of out of place. For example: "Leicester City footballer Keith Weller, who made over 300 appearances for the Foxes, scored 47 goals. Also, he made four appearances for England, scoring one goal." The facts about how many goals he scored seems unnecessary and out of place in an article about cancer. This is especially true when comparing this to other notable cases such as Katie Price, whose name is just listed without any associated facts. I would try and make each notable case equal in terms of how much info is given about them.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? Unable to tell
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? N/A

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, many of the sources listed in the references section are from 2020-onward.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? N/A
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? N/A

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? In the first section it says "This type of cancer is more frequently diagnosed in adults as compared to children." And then a few sentences later in the same paragraph, it says "LMSs are seen in adults more often than they are seen in children." I would delete one of these sentences to limit redundancy.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I think this sentence is a little clunky: "Additionally, when considering LMS specifically in the context of the uterus, it affects approximately 6 individuals per 1 million people in the United States each year." Also, in the sentence "LMSs also often develop in the retroperitoneal region  which consists of the suprarenal glands, the kidney, and ureter." I would add the other retroperitoneal organs such as the aorta and the inferior vena cava, and also change "kidney" and "ureter" to be plural (i.e kidneys and ureters) to agree with the plural "suprarenal glands."


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? I think adding a "prognosis" section could be really useful. Even if it just says something vague I think it would be helpful to add. Cancer.gov has an article on leiomyosarcoma that has a prognosis section that says "The estimate of how a disease will affect you in the long term is called prognosis. Every person is different, and prognosis will depend on many factors, such as: Where the tumor is in your body, If the cancer has spread to other parts of your body, How much of the tumor was taken out during surgery." I think something similar about prognosis being dependent on tumor spread and location would be worthwhile to put in the article. In addition, I think a section about symptoms would also be great.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Adding more recent sources is great