User talk:Friasal/Vestibular schwannoma

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.