User talk:Aagino/New sandbox

Peer Review

Wow this is impressive! I genuinely really enjoyed reading your article. Overall I think it flows very nicely, is perfectly organized, appropriately readable, and straightforward to comprehend. You have a good amount of information without being too detailed or medical, but is much more thorough than most public resources on this topic. I think it's a really good comprehensive summary and it's clear you put a lot of work into it. I'm really impressed. I go into more specifics below:

• Readability: This article seems to be at a very appropriate reading level. I never found myself having to reread for comprehension. The only part that was somewhat challenging--I feel like the anatomy section may get a little confusing, lots of anatomy words in a very short space. However I get that anatomy is difficult to digest as is, and you're limited in what you can do with it. I think if you change nothing here that's still totally fine, but you could try to break it up a little bit. Overall you do a great job of synthesizing information into digestible pieces.
• Adherence to topic: You definitely adhered to the topic and each subtopic within your article. You don't repeat any information throughout your article, every section and fact is new and relevant.
• Organization & Flow: I really like how you organized this article. From starting with history and classification, to more clinical diagnosis and treatment. I also like how you have subgroups for your diagnosis heading, it helps with readability and keeping your content discretely organized.
• Use of images and figures: Having an anatomical image of the eye is very helpful! Good use of images.
• Proper use of citations: Yes.
• Paraphrasing: You paraphrase nicely. I'm assuming from how readable this is that you are paraphrasing well and nothing is too close to how it is written in scientific articles.
• Quality Sources, i.e. resources open to the public: Very legit sources! I like that most of them are from reputable ophthalmology journals. I guess my one critique here would be to include more sources that are available to the public. Sites like mayo clinic, webmd, and similar sources might be good to add. However I do think that the collection of sources you have is very solid, and doesn't necessarily need changing.
• Check for bias and equal-sided arguments: Definitely no bias.
• I don't think there are any gaps in information. I didn't find myself with any remaining questions after reading your article. It felt like I got a good comprehensive summary.

Really nice article! Medbean (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)