User:Aminah2640/Feminist health center/Mkaddache Peer Review

General info
(Aminah2640)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Aminah2640/Feminist health center
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Feminist health center

Lead

 * The lead has not been edited, but does include a clear and concise introductory sentence. I believe that the lead section is quite concise and does a good job of hitting the main points of what a feminist health center is as well as giving a brief description about what the content of the article is about. Overall, it looks great and serves its purpose for the information ahead!

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I do believe that the added content is relevant to the paper since it widely expands the main point of the paper, which is why feminist health centers are a better alternative to mainstream clinics because of their dedication to disadvantaged populations.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Because I do not have access to the bibliography of the new edits and actual citations are not added (besides in text), I cannot determine this.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think that the added content is quite relevant since it further develops/expands on actual initiatives taken by these health centers that separate them from typical clinics as well as providing more definitions to better understand people’s perspectives.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Yes, the “difference from mainstream health clinics” section is almost entirely focused on how these centers provide more accessibility to disadvantaged populations which is a very important equity gap in healthcare.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? I do believe that the content has a neutral tone and follows the proper Wikipedia guidelines for neutral content.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think the additions on immigrants and insurance (in particular the study) are appropriate, but there could be some expansion of why LGBTQ+ individuals feel more comfortable attending a feminist health center or what they specifically offer than the mainstream clinics do not. Perhaps adding more context on what the specific challenges that queer people 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 cited with the year or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate 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? Based on the in text citations, the sources seem quite thorough at first glance but none are from the class readings.
 * Are the sources current? The new sources are not cited with the year or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? - Based on the in text citations, there are at least three different sources used by different authors as well.
 * 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? Based on the in text citations, I think that the sources are potentially fine as they seem to be from journals/reliable sources, not news coverage or random websites.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I do believe that the added content is written quite well with no part difficult or take lots of effort to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see any major errors.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I would suggest to potentially switch the LEP sentences with the WCRC for better flow since it is broken up before and after the slightly off-topic LEP part in the overall context of flow.

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 room to add more about how the LGBTQ+ community’s health is improved by these health centers and initiatives previously done (or in the works) that cater to them to further strengthen the article’s claims. I also think that some slight reorganization towards the end of the edited section could be beneficial for proper flow as well as adding the years to the citation for proper formatting.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths in the added edits come from their ability to provide concrete examples for how these centers are revolutionizing healthcare for many communities who are often forgotten and mistreated by traditional clinics through proper implementations. They really added important perspectives to the paper that was previously underdeveloped.