I really like that you put such a complicated medical topic in easy to understand, laymen's terms. There were a few things to fix though. Since you're talking about tumors plural it should read "these have not been report..." in the second sentence. In your diagnosis and prevalence & demographics section you do not need to mention "you et al." you can just site it in the proper spot. Scherma3840J (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The organization of this article is very clear and well done. The critiques I have are to add more links in the words you've used, and be more consistent in the capitalization of Schwannoma. There are a few grammatical errors. In the section "Intraocular Schwannoma", I would remove the phrase "as one may suspect" in order to stay wikipedia-like. In the "Treatment" section, it should read "as schwannomas are resistant to this treatment" not "as". To keep it neutral, I would find another way to say "great" in the first sentence of the "Prognosis" section. Also, an easier and clearer way to describe the function of Schwann cells is that they are involved in immune function. Jaclyn3840J (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
For being such a technical and heavy topic, this article is incredibly clear. Despite having no idea what it was talking about I was able to plow through the article. Grammar-wise: this article is well-written, and though I could just be lost in all the terminology, nothing really jumped out at me. Wikipedia style: no red links! That's such a relief to see, the style of the page was well-organized, and links and citations were placed correctly. As Jaclyn noted, some of the language may need to be changed, but otherwise the style is correct. the article's accuracy is bound to its references, of which this article seems to have plenty, and current too. Aside from some very small problems this seems to be a pretty well done page. Ps3840j (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Clarity was great! I like though how you added a lot of links so that for those of us who are unfamiliar with the terms could check them out! The grammar i noticed has been written in the above topics, i think the hardest part to get through was just the terminology but like i said you gave links to those who did not understand completely. I like the topic, i feel that you put a lot of effort into it because with this sort of thing you would not want to give false information. So yes your article was accurate and references listed below were credible. I liked the table of contents so that way i could see what i was looking at. After reading i felt very informed and i believe that was the goal! nice job — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cab3840J (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)