Talk:Maternal healthcare in Texas

Peer Review
Hey this page is shaping up well! I really think that you are doing a good job of using statistics to give a quick overview of the scale of the problem. On thing that I would say is that it is currently very weighted towards the issue of abortion. Obviously, this article has just been started, but be aware of just focusing on the lack of abortion rights as the entirety of the maternal health issue. I look forward to seeing you add more information to make this a more comprehensive article. Akweaver32 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review by Michelle
Good job at picking an important, very relevant topic to cover. I was pleased to see that you have found published studies that have been conducted recently investigating the effects of cuts in Planned Parenthood funding on current high rates of maternal mortality. I am looking forward to seeing what you include from these sources, and overall look forward to reading your finished article!

I think blueraspberry made some good points about how to improve your article on the talk tab of your other page (in the mainspace). So far, the content that you have written out is a bit disjunct with the lead-in discussing mainly the idea of maternal mortality and pinpointing a few medical reasons for this and then the historical section simply providing a discussion on history of abortion laws in Texas. I would like to see more discussion of the other various aspects of maternal healthcare such as care during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period. I see that your outline included discussion of some of these various services, and I think it would be worthwhile to briefly mention them in your lead-in and your historical article. This would broaden up the article to align more with its title.

Additionally, as I mentioned in more detail in the peer review form, I think it would also be valuable to consider re-evaluating your current proposed section outline and thinking about how to improve organizational flow. For example, if you have a discussion on the history of maternal healthcare, I do not think it is necessary to include "twenty-first century ___" in your section titles; this should be assumed. This is my personal opinion. Also, I would like to chime in that if you achieve the better organization and more inclusion of various aspects of Texas maternal healthcare, I think you will encounter less resistance from the Wikipedia community.

In general, the most important think you could do to improve it is to discuss more about healthcare services other than abortion that are important for maternal care. There are many, so this should not be difficult for you. Overall good job and looking forward to seeing what else you add in Mtran99 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Hey Snigdha, good job on adding more content. I really like the points you made on the legal changes to the Texas maternal health system. It's always good to know about where the currently issue stems from. I think you definitely have a lot of good ideas for sections, and there are many more beyond that for sure. Make sure not to use words that aren't neutral, especially on a controversial topic such as this. One section that I really think you should add is one on the debate. As long as you cover both sides, I think it will still be considered neutral. Keep adding, the article is shaping up well! Akweaver32 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2 by Michelle
Snigdha-

Good job at expanding on the various services that maternal healthcare encompasses. You edited your lead in and even changed your outline to reflect this shift to broadening this article’s focus. In general, I also liked how you changed your lead-in to make it more relevant to the rest of your article.

As I mentioned in more detail in my review sheet, I think that perhaps further restructuring of the outline would be beneficial. I still feel like the “history of maternal healthcare in Texas” is still disproportionately focused on abortion services. Later on under your “services” section, you bring up other services like family planning, mental health services, and behavioral health services. Perhaps you can just delete this general history section and put relevant historical info under each service. You can even delete the “service” section title altogether and change everything that is currently a sub-section of “service” into a standalone section.

Overall, the most important think you could do to continue to add more about healthcare services other than abortion that are important for maternal care. You started to work on this more, so keep it up. Mtran99 (talk)

History merge
This article was developed by students. It is no fault of theirs that Wikipedia's tools are complicated, and I just made a technical request for a WP:History merge.

This current article in the mainspace is titled "Maternal Healthcare System in Texas" and its history begins at a certain time. This article is actually a copy/paste of the content currently at Draft:Maternal Health in Texas. The two histories can be merged without a problem, because the start of this one is a few minutes after the last edit on the old one, and this is the same content. Please preserve the old editing history by merging that here.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Review by bluerasberry
This article was developed by in Wiki Ed/Rice University/Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities (Fall 2016) as overseen by.

Overall, it is a great article and I am really impressed to see this come from a new Wikipedia contributor. I cannot immediately identify any major problems with it, so I am glad that it is in the encyclopedia mainspace. I like it because it is well-planned into sections, those sections are summarized in the lead, the information that is presented is backed with citations to reliable sources, the article is illustrated, and it complies with Wikipedia's own expectations for article content. Here is some more specific criticism -

What works -
 * neutral prose, like "The system in Texas has also received attention in regards to the state's maternal mortality rate, currently the highest in the United States"
 * good sourcing for statements like the above, which is backed by the academic journal Obstetrics & Gynecology
 * great choice of subsections - healthcare services, the child's perspective, and the mother's perspective
 * good limits on discussing primary studies, for which results cannot be generalized - "One study conducted in 2010 through interviews of low-income women living in San Antonio..."
 * good courage in making a bold statement following a review of lots of primary studies, like "maternal mortality in the US has been linked to chronic health conditions in women..."
 * great initiative in adding images and checking for free licenses that comply with Wikipedia's copyright requirements

What could be further developed -
 * Totally not the editor's fault, but Wikipedia's own citation system is complicated. There is an identification number - the PMID or DOI - for many of the cited papers which, if collected, could have generated a nicely formatted citation. There is enough information provided here to find the sources cited, but if the editor could have gotten support, they might have created more full citations with less effort.
 * The sections could be discussed further. The editor choose three great section heading (services, child, and mother) but also found some hot issues which could have been used to organize this content in a different way. Perhaps the current way works, but legal history is intermingled with health in all the sections. I would not recommend separating the legal parts from the health parts because I do not know what is best, but it would be interesting to discuss why it is this way and not another.
 * Some of the images come from odd websites. Like for example, the image of a mother and child in the lead came from a website which promises that it is public domain, but the user who uploaded it did not give their real name and only uploaded two images to their account. Is this image really theirs? When is a website trustworthy? On its face, everything seems in order, but the reliability could be discussed.

What is a problem -
 * Nothing here is a major problem. Thanks for all of this. It will be developed more in time by other Wikipedia editors. Thanks for your patience in this and coming back with an awesome contribution.

✅  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Revisions Plan
During this revision, I am hoping to improve the article from C-Class to Good Article status. While the article has a strong foundation and general overview of topics in the realm of maternal health in Texas, the article could benefit from more specifics. These include the addition of the chronic disease management programs and antenatal care community-based initiatives, federal initiatives such as the Nurse Family Partnership, sex health education in Texas, the demography of women in Texas, behavioral health, and initiatives created by the Texas Task Force on maternal mortality and morbidity. In this round of revisions, I plan to increase the specificity of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBanda (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

SBanda (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)