User:Mkaddache/Community health/Riyaaarul 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?

(Mkaddache)

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Mkaddache/Community health
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Community health

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hi Mina! Here's my peer review for you, Lead
The lead has been edited to be more specific towards the definition of what community health is defined as. I believe that the clarification that community health is "non-treatment based" is very important to include as often times this is glanced over by readers who don't have much knowledge on the topic itself. As for the rest of the lead, it stays concise and does not include any extra details so I believe that it is overall effective now with the added edits. Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I believe that the content added is relevant to the paper as it includes an extra section on on how Limited English Proficiency (LEP) patients may be affected by poor efforts in community health and how there should be more initiatives aimed to increase their awareness on their rights within healthcare.
Is the content added up-to-date? Because I do not have access to the bibliography of the new edits and citations are yet to be added, I cannot evaluate this. But I would double check the citations and make sure that new information is within the last decade or two.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think that all of the content that is added is very relevant to the paper as it brings more specificity on definitions regarding community health as well more perspectives in which initiatives can target underrepresented people.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Yes, the additional section on increasing transparency of healthcare rights for LEP patients really addresses an important equity gap in community health.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral? - I would say that the content has a neutral tone and follows the guidelines for neutral content.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: I think the viewpoint that is introduced regarding LEPs can definitely be expanded upon within the edits. Maybe defining it better and adding more context on what the specific challenges that LEPs face would be a good start for this.

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.
Are the sources current? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.
Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.
Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I would say that in terms of prose and language the added edits are easy to read.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not that I have seen.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - I think that the added section on how LEPs can be taken into account with respect to community health can be it's own subsection: I would title it "Community Health With Respect to LEP Patients, or Addressing Marginalized Groups"

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - I think there is definitely room to add more towards the end of the article on how community health initiatives can cater toward underrepresented groups such as LEP's and even other groups to further strengthen its main claims. I also think that more work can be done in the lead to further set up the challenges that are discussed later on as this seems a little out of place after the lead is presented.
What are the strengths of the content added? I really do think that the strengths in this article's edits come from its ability to to redefine and specifically explain the term community health as well as add in the difference marginalized groups that can be assisted through its proper implementations. This really added another perspective to the paper that was previously unclear or not there.

-Riya Arul