User talk:Diabeticgiraffe/sandbox

Peer Review

Readability: Good readability overall. I think your paragraph under the "uses" section could be broken up or possibly written in list form to mention all the uses for amnioinfusion. With the large block of text and the medical vocabulary, it can be difficult to follow. I like how you added the highlight links to other Wikipedia links that the reader can click on to help with this. Maybe consider adding more for terms like "polyhydramnios" and "meconium aspiration syndrome".

Adherence to topic / Not getting off track: Stayed on track for the entirety of the article.

Organization & Flow: Overall, you have good flow and organization in the article. I think the "History" section is placed a little randomly at the end. I would consider listing history at the beginning of the article to give viewers a preview of what this technique was used for before going into current practices.

Use of images and figures: I would recommend use of a simple image to show the amnioinfusion technique so that viewers can follow along with your description.

Proper use of citations: Looks great to me!

Quality Sources, i.e. resources open to the public: If you are able to find more open access sources for this topic, I think it would be beneficial to replace some of your current sources. I think a few of your sources require an institution login or access to a journal, which can make access a little more difficult for viewers. However, if there aren't many open access articles on this topic, these sources are better than no sources!

Check for bias and equal-sided arguments: Information is presented clearly without any bias in this article.

Great job overall! Simply28 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)