User talk:Am08wiki26/Percutaneous intentional extraluminal revascularization

Peer Review
Readability: The content of your article is clear and relatively easy to understand. It may be more difficult for someone without preexisting medical or anatomical knowledge to understand the context of some terms; in this case, it may be helpful to provide links to other relevant articles (such as for angioplasty in your first paragraph).

Adherence to topic: The entire article adhered to relevant subtopics related to percutaneous intentional extraluminal revascularization.

Organization and flow: The article is organized into logical subheadings and flows well. The only suggestion I really have is that there are some extra spaces within the Technique section that could be deleted.

Images and figures: N/A. Up to you if you'd like to include any or not, though it may help readers visualize the procedure.

Proper use of citations: I think some of the citations can be deleted, mainly the use of citations after each bullet point in the Risks/Complications and Recovery sections, since you've already cited the source at the end of the preceding paragraph. Proper use of citations is present otherwise.

Paraphrasing: After checking some of the citations, paraphrasing is appropriate and conveys the gist of the corresponding information.

Quality sources: Sources are from peer-reviewed journals. The publication years range from 1990 to 2014, providing relevant historical facts as well as updated procedural approaches.

Bias: No bias is present, all information is relayed in a neutral tone.

Overall impressions: Very informative and provides a good summary of details relevant to the procedure. Kqym (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)