User talk:Jesszicc/Dilated fundus examination

Peer Review

 * Peer review guidelines:
 * Check for readability
 * I think readability is at appropriate level. Brief definitions are given when needed, good work on this.
 * Adherence to topic / Not getting off track
 * Very focused.
 * Organization & Flow
 * Good, logical
 * Use of images and figures
 * Would love to seem some fundoscopic images of normal vs some of the pathologies listed, as well as a diagram of eye anatomy in "examination section"
 * Proper use of citations
 * Good
 * Paraphrasing
 * Good
 * Quality Sources, i.e. resources open to the public
 * Trusted and appropriate sources - review papers / professional guidelines / etc.
 * Check for bias and equal-sided arguments
 * Did not broach any controversial arguments. Does not appear to have bias.
 * Provide productive and professional critique
 * Great, I think its nearly done. Just would be good to add some images and complete the citation process. Nice work.

Jimmy Catfanatic (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)