User talk:J0820/sandbox

Veena's Peer Review

Services I think Irvina did a good job in overviewing some of the tone and grammatical issues you may find.

1. CHCs emphasize empowerment, so they also have programs to help eligible patients apply to federally funded health coverage programs, such as Medicaid. I would go into how this is actually true, and whether there is evidence that CHCs are effective in terms of creating autonomy.

In general, I think your passage portrays a rosy picture of CHC and their interaction with low-income populations. I would suggest to find some other documentation that would enrich the neutral tone you need to strive for.

Quality of Care I would limit your use of transitions such as "Additionally", as I don't think it fits an encyclopedic tone you're striving for. Otherwise, I think this passage could use a little more analysis in terms of the accountability for CHCs, and I think there's currently a lot of research being done about healthcare for low-income peoples in general.

I think you're off to a great start! Please reach out with anything!

Veena.narashiman (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Irvina's Peer Review

Hi there! My name is Irvina and I'm from the Tuesday section of GPP. If you have any questions or comments about my suggestions/comments, feel free to reach out :)

I've divided my comments based on the specific sections you've worked on. I couldn't find any section in the Summarizing and Synthesizing section for your Area article, Oakland, California, so I couldn't provide any suggestions on it.

Services

1. "CHCs emphasize empowerment, so they also have programs to help eligible patients apply to federally funded health coverage programs, such as Medicaid"

It seems to be a broad claim that all community health centers in the United States emphasize empowerment. After looking at the citation you referenced, it doesn't seem as though the article mentioned empowerment, so I suggest rewording the statement and possibly connecting it with the previous sentence in regards to the providence of public health serviced unrelated to direct care if you cannot find another source. The wording of the sentence also implies CHCs have these programs because they emphasize empowerment and that could be seem as a subjective perspective, versus a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

2. "These populations could include specific minority groups, the elderly, or the homeless."

With your edits, the sentence still seems grammatically incorrect. I would suggest adding a few words that imply the elderly and homeless populations are examples of the specific minority groups.

On top of the comments I made above for the Services section, I would suggest finding more sources for the bulk of information in these sections. In the original article, it seems most of the information provided in this section is attributed to one source. I think it would be extremely helpful to provide more citations so that the information on the article provides a well-rounded perspective versus views/information from a single source. Overall, I think you've made a helpful contribution towards Wikipedia by proof-reading their current content and making it more detailed.

Quality of Care

1. "However, one major challenge that community health centers face is that the population that they serve is usually dealing with many other factors that can also detrimentally affect their health."

This sentence seems a bit redundant, especially since the sentence after somewhat says the same thing, but with more details. If you would like to keep the sentence, I would suggest combining it with the next sentences and citing its examples so it doesn't seem as though you are repeating information.

2. "Additionally, Gay Becker, a medical anthropologist at UCSF, conducted research that indicated that many CHC patients delay seeking health care because they hold a negative view of the health care safety net and expect discrimination from CHCs"

In the Editing Medical Topics Wikipedia training, they advised us not to use any single research study until a medical consensus has emerged. The article you cited seems to be a single research study by Gay Becker, where Gay Becker directly participated in the research. I would suggest not using this sentence, unless you have another source that is a systematic review or literature review that examines a wide variety of studies that supports the findings Gay Becker found in his research.

3. "Currently, there is no government program in place to monitor and evaluate the quality of care of CHCs. "

This statement seems like a bold claim, but you didn't cite it, so I would suggest just citing the source so others can see where you found this information.

My main concern with this section would just be the sources for the statements you added into the article as well as redundancy. I think credibility and good sources is emphasized a lot throughout Wikipedia trainings and it would make articles a lot more useful, especially for readers, if they are able to trace back the sources and find that the source used are indeed a good source.

Most of my comments were on language used as well as the usage of certain sources, but I hope they're helpful! I think you're going in a good direction with the article in terms of reorganization and emphasizing certain points. Good luck with the rest of your editing! Chadowelf (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)