User:Rishib23/User:Angelica.gnlz/Health equity/Rishib23 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Angelica

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Angelica.gnlz/Health equity
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Angelica.gnlz/Health_equity&oldid=1084678081

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead:

- While the lead has not been updated to reflect the new changes, that's because the lead is fairly broad and the proposed changes add a specific bullet point to the proposed solutions section. As a result, I don't think many changes need to be added to the lead for these proposed revisions.

Content:

- I think the main things that can be improved in the content is adding a little more specificity. For example, the description of urban medicine can be improved a little bit to support the argument for medical pluralism. The main flaw highlighted of urban medicine just seems to be that it embraces technological solutions, but more examples of how it is insufficient to serve rural populations would better support the claim that medical pluralism is necessary. Also, my impression of urban medicine is that it seems to be the predominant form of health care, at least in the United States, so I think delineating what urban medicine does and doesn't do as opposed to alternative medicine would be helpful. This would also tie into a description of what needs non-urban communities have that urban medicine doesn't deal with well.

Tone and Balance:

- I think that the paragraph may be a bit too argumentative, and phrases like "a compromise between the two is seemingly ideal for the needs of all populations" seems more opinionated than factual. I think some of the more argumentative sentences can be replaced by more specificity as to what urban and alternative medicine is.

Sources and References:

- I think the sources need to be cited in Wikipedia's format instead of in-text citations, and also need to be manually created so that they show up in the references section. I think the last sentence (about implementations of medical pluralism within Latin American countries like Ecuador) should also be backed up by a citation, as well as some specific examples about the strategies being pursued there.

Overall Impressions:

- I think the contribution to this article is very valuable, and definitely contributes to an understanding of healthy equity as requiring diverse methods as well as a focus on diverse populations. I think the ways that the contribution could be improved is by adding in specificity as to what urban/alternative medicine is, and I think that this could replace some of the more argumentative portions of the contribution as well.