User:Aminah2640/Race and health in the United States/Mkaddache Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Aminah2640/Race and health in the United States
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Race and health in the United States

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, but could give a much better description about what the content of the article is about. Also, I do not believe that any information is missing.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I think the added content is relevant because it gives a new perspective by bringing in the intersectionality of race and gender, something not really mentioned in other parts of the article, even though intersectionality (gender specifically) is at the heart of many debates surrounding health in the US.
 * 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, but more recent developments are mentioned.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not think that there is content missing as the intersection with gender is pretty large, however, it would be interesting for more intersections to be written about like immigration or LGBTQ+.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Yes, the entire is focused on how there are health disparities for different races because of systemic issues and historical context, a considerable gap in healthcare that affects people worldwide.

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 about gender are appropriate, but there could be some expansion on other demographics and their intersections with race and health. Perhaps adding a bit on gender identity within the race/gender part?

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 or suggested sources list.
 * Are the sources current? The actual added sources are not cited with the year or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this, but they are discussing more recent events.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Based on the in text citations, there are three different sources written by different authors as well.
 * Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The added sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate. The last name Xing does suggest that the author is of Asian descent (POC).
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Based on the in text citations, the sources seem fine as I think they’re 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 significant 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 think that the added content is pretty well-organized as even though the ACA mentionings are broken up, they lead nicely into each other and other topics.

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? Overall, I think that the content as greatly improved the article by providing different nuances and perspectives about how gender can affect the relationship between race and health. Maybe, there is room to add more about some other communities within the gender section that are affected like trans-women or non-binary individuals to further strengthen the article’s claims.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths in the added edits come from their ability to provide a different perspective previously unmentioned for how race affects health along with the gender of individuals.