User:Rishib23/User:Angelica.gnlz/Rural health/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/Rural health
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Angelica.gnlz/Rural_health&oldid=1085692603

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: The lead is not edited, but given that the main contribution of the edit is to add in an example of medical pluralism in Ecuador and discussing the critical analysis surrounding these efforts, editing the lead is not super critical.

Content: I think the explanation for medical pluralism could be made a little bit clearer: Sentences like "Medical pluralism arises as an inorganic approach that encapsulates the battles between urban and rural health and is manifested in the practice of integrative medicine which is a more deliberate execution of that approach" doesn't provide much information about how medical pluralism concretely differs from dominant medical approaches. The description of the medical pluralism approaches in Ecuador provide some analysis of the approach but don't provide any details of its implementation. Similarly, the description of integrative medicine does a good job of explaining how it could integrate indigenous perspectives but doesn't provide any examples of the indigenous approaches to be integrated.

Tone and Balance: I think with more concrete examples the tone and balance of the contribution would be better. Right now, much of the contribution is a critical analysis of the benefits of the integrative medicine and medical pluralism without examples of what that includes. As a result, the tone is definitely biased in support of these approaches and the balance in terms of advantages and disadvantages suffers a bit as well. I think the discussion of the arena of critical perspectives seems a bit abstract, especially for a discussion of a medical approach, and definitely aims to persuade the reader in one direction.

Sources and References: I think the biggest improvement in this area is to add Wikipedia references and remove the in-text citation format from the needs talk history assignment.

Organization: I think the contribution is organized well, in terms of transitioning from a discussion of medical pluralism to integrative medicine and comparing both approaches. I think one area where the transition could be improved is discussing what the "concrete implementation" of medical pluralism means in terms of a difference in approach. Otherwise both seem like they are the same idea.

Overall Thoughts: Overall, I think the contribution is well-written. I think in terms of being a Wikipedia contribution, the tone and style needs to be changed a bit from the needs talk history style of essay to focus less on the critical analysis of these programs and the discourse surrounding them to instead focus on the implementation details of what both medical pluralism and integrative medicine look like and the ways they are similar and different. I think transitioning to a bit more factual style of writing would help improve the balance and tone in the article and provide more evidence for the value of medical pluralism and integrative medicine.