im not sure about how different standards and methodologies of writing is in other branches, but this one didnt quite do it for me sadly. i understand if they are different, though. it seems mostly to be scientific infodumps with no real payoff or closure, and no hooks or identifying factors to distinguish it from other pages which have already been uploaded timelessly here. the premise also seems fairly simplistic but doesnt take advantage of this. again, i wish i'd see something more than just descriptive information because there are still ways to incorporate storytelling through basic clinical tone
i cant downvote on my opinions it seems and rather on the translation quality, so for that it does get a +1
stan red velvet
