There are experts in every field, and I feel that they are the best people to judge any work as long as it belongs to their respective fields. Their critique is the most accurate: they're straightforward and throw at you only the truth, they let you know where you're lacking and give you ideas and suggestions to uplift your work. They are the best guides and their reviews can be blindly trusted. On the other hand, the same cannot be said about a person who isn't a seasoned professional yet.
Let us take the example of the Food and Science sphere. A person aspiring to be a well-renowned chef cooks up a dish and now he wants to know if his dish is worth being served in luxury five star restaurants. If his food is to be tested by a mundane person or a junior chef, his dish would obviously be scored high whereas an executive chef would probably give his dish an avergae grade. This is because a professional chef has been exposed to various kinds of ingredients and foods and knows the scientific components of food and hence, can accurately spot flaws in dishes. He can make out acid proportions, salt contents, spices, flavours, etc. in just a bite! He can then suggest aspirants what cooking techniques they could've implemented instead, teach them new and advanced cooking tricks and shortcuts, etc.
To conclude this essay, I would say that I completely agree that consulting an expert in the field we aspire to be and getting work and products corrected by them will always get us on the right track, whereas asking for advice from a person who has had little or no exposure to the domain yet, would yeild false results.