User talk:Znsila/Scintimammography

Peer Review

Hey Zach,

I think your article is really well done! The first things that catch my eye are the bolded sections and the blue hyperlinks. Your use of bolding to highlight the most important information people are likely searching for is really intelligent. You include some medical jargon, which I think is 100% necessary because the pathology is what the pathology is, but you also hyperlink those to other stubs, and I think that's ingenious. It makes it super easy to follow, even when you don't know what those medical terms mean. I think your emphasis on scintimammography being used after mammogram +/- US and in those with contraindications to MRI is extremely important as people will likely wonder if this is so great, why not use it more often? I think you do a wonderful job at being unbiased, and scientific without overwhelming a reader. I never once felt like I needed a medical background to understand what you were saying, even when talking about the specific radiopharmaceutical. I think talking about limitations also aids in remaining unbiased. I think your work is extremely clear. I didn't notice any grammatical mistakes, and as far as I was able to tell all information was accurate. I know you have citations and likely just didn't get the time to add them in, but would love to see those. I think additional information on indications (which you clearly have a heading for) will also help readers better understand when to use this. I also think images may help people understand how/why MBI differs from mammogram/US/MRI. You could also consider talking about adverse effects some people have to radiopharmaceuticals (if they are even common), but likely not necessary. Great work! Looking forward to the final version. Deep370z (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)