User:Abbyroman/Medi-Cal/Shafataryan Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Abbyroman


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Abbyroman/Medi-Cal


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Medi-Cal

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - I'm not sure where this draft is going to be inserted, thus, I can't entirely confirm or evaluate the lead. Additionally, I don't think the lead was included in the edits of this draft. The introductory line is detailed and lists the upcoming debates regarding the 'barriers' that medi-cal's online application has.

Content

Is the added content relevant to the topic? - Yes, the topic is highly relevant as it concerns information about Medi-Cal and the barriers associated with its online application process.

Is the added content up-to-date? - It's unable to be confirmed how current the content since there's no bibliography.

Does the article address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it discuss topics related to historically underrepresented populations? - Yes, it does. By observing Medi-Cal, it addresses underrepresented populations as Medi-Cal is primarily for low-income individuals and households, who often belong to communities of colour.

Tone and Balance

Is the added content neutral in tone? - The tone is neutral over the entire draft, an attempts to present information about the barriers of Medi-Cal's online application without bias.

Are there overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints? - There doesn't seem to be any particular viewpoint that is being pushed. The content primarily discusses the challenges that Medi-Cal is facing and the barriers in its application process.

Sources and References

Unable to answer as there's no bibliography. It would certainly benefit the article if in-text citations (wikipedia-style hyperlinks) were added.

Organization

Is the added content well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, it's easy to read.

Does the added content contain any grammatical or spelling errors? - There's capitalization error in the last bullet point section: "Sometimes individuals don’t have access to the internet or experience confusion."

Some bullet points end with random periods, these could be removed.

Is the added content well-organized, broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, it's well organized.

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? - It's difficult to evaluate this question, as it's still unclear where the information is going to be inserted. However, the information seems useful and informative.

What are the strengths of the content added? - A big strength of this draft is in its easy-to-read nature, which is certainly aided by the bullet points.