User:Ayh1208/Presbyopia/Dentgineer Peer Review: Difference between revisions

Whose work are you reviewing?

Ayh1208

Link to draft you’re reviewing

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyopia

Overall excellent changes. They significantly improve the readability of the article without significant reductions in details.

The deletions of old paragraphs under signs and symptoms was very good. The discussion on treatment was not appropriate for this section. Your version makes more sense.

For the mechanisms section, the mention of “crystalline lens” was a little confusing. I was wondering if this is a different types of lens. I think in the context of the eye, it is not necessary to say “crystalline lens”. I would also create links to ciliary muscles and zonular fiber articles for those that want more details on these structures.

Under diagnosis, this is a very good section. I would just recommend that the portion about presbyopia having a “near point of accommodation recessed beyond the usual reading distance” would be better suited under mechanisms since it is a direct function of impaired accommodation for near vision. The section about classification of presbyopia into mild, moderate, and advanced phases might be better suited as a new paragraph.

The sources look good overall though UpToDate is less ideal since you can’t cite a specific version and they do not keep
archives of past versions for review. There are some sources that are hospital websites. While I’m sure they are reliable, I think that if possible, a textbook might be better for information that is very well established since once can more reliably cite a specific version.

The tone is good and presents the information in a neutral manner.

All in all, I think the changes you made were exceptional and improve the clarity without removing the details for those that want it.

Dentgineer (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)