Talk:Squamous cell carcinoma of the vagina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

Barbara (WVS)   19:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: 2023-24 WikiMed Directed Studies[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 February 2024 and 23 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RiotingDaffodil (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Brownoms.

— Assignment last updated by RiotingDaffodil (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My goals are to further expand the information given (in revision), format the article in a more encyclopedic nature (in revision), add more references (complete?), and add a picture (complete).

Peer Review of changes: The revisions made to the article by RiotingDaffodil are on the whole very well done. They have continued to follow their work plan thoroughly. The lead sections is written well. I would suggest adding a section on treatment in the lead. In the lead I would also follow "Though uncommonly diagnosed, squamous cell cancer of the vagina (SCCV) is the most common type of vaginal cancer, accounting for 80-90%" with something along the lines of "and 2% of all gynecolgical cancers." This is mainly to clarify that the cancer is not necessarily missed but a less common type of cancer. Or if the author intended it to say that it is missed more frequently than is diagnosed add additional information. This is nitpick just thinking about a person that only scans the lead and not the entire article where all of that info is well documented. The user added good sources that include recommendations from health authorities, treatment guidelines from reputable organizations and journals with minimal primary sources used. The added sources also represent the most up to date information. The links I checked work. The article retains a neutral point of view. The article has a logical and has a easy to follow flow. The revisions in formatting are good. The info box is also well done with good information and images used. Great Job. -Brownoms (talk)