User:Angelica.gnlz/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)


 * 1) Health equity
 * 2) Rural health

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)


 * 1) I chose to evaluate this article because it discusses the topic of health equity and sections the discussion into parts that explore spatial, economic, racial, etc. inequalities. These discussions are quite significant in the scope of the work I will be doing with CFHI in providing indigenous communities care. I was impressed by the several outlets this article explored as contributors of health inequity as typically, only socioeconomic disparities are addressed.
 * 2) I chose to evaluate this article on the basis that rural health is one of the most important aspects of health in Latin America. It compares healthcare in urban and rural areas which is significant in furthering the conversation of health equity and access. My preliminary impression on it was that it was a brief introduction into defining what rural health is, however, it is quite insufficient in providing statistics on where rural health is most concentrated.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)


 * 1) I would consider the article to be very enriching and very informative, however, it still lacks some work. It delivers information on the many causes of health inequities very effectively and considers a broad range of contributors to the issue. By having each of these causes as its own subtopic, for example "spatial disparities", "ethic disparities" and "LGBTQ disparities", the article creates a strong argument for the prevalence of health inequities and the systems that uphold it. However, it can be improved specifically by mentioning the types of illnesses and consequences that health inequities lead to and who it affects most. Overall, I would still say this article is well-developed and just needs greater discussion of what happens when health equity is not achieved.
 * 2) I would consider the status of the article to be very much in the works. I believe the article lacks a substantial amount of information regarding where rural health is more important and a discussion of the failed attempts to implement programs that would provide care to rural areas. Discussions on further issues such as language barriers and inability to access technology and internet are important when talking about possible solutions, however, these discussions lack heavily in the article and thus would help improve it. The article does pose strong arguments for the importance of health determinants such as living and working conditions, but I believe these areas can be elaborated on as well. Overall, I would consider the to be underdeveloped and could be made more compelling.