User:Bryanna Jones/User:Bryanna Jones/sandbox/SophisticatedStick Peer Review

General info
Bryanna Jones
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Bryanna Jones/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Healthcare in Mexico

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * I like that the Social Health Protection System was written in Spanish and then translated in parenthesis. I like that some names are mentioned and dates are included. I did not know this much about the health crisis in Mexico before this, so I feel like I learned a lot.
 * Adding links to certain words which link to other Wikipedia pages could help (highlight and ctrl + k). If there are any words that would work. Also I think including what the large health crisis was in the first paragraph would help, if it was a cancer crisis it would be better to use that instead.
 * Overall I think including relevant statistics would inform the reader greatly and would make the article seem more valid. As well as just being more specific about things in general.
 * Maybe I could include names in my article more.

Structure


 * I think it's organized well.
 * Each section is a very good length. Nothing is off-topic.
 * I don't think there's any perspectives left out.
 * It doesn't draw conclusions.

Neutral Content

 * There are both positive parts and negative parts, so I would guess the author is neutral.
 * I think overall it sounds too opinionated or whatever the word is. Not that it actually is opinionated, but for example it would be better to describe in more ways how the hospital's services are low quality, and then remove the 'low quality' part and let the reader decide it is low quality on their own. Or the first sentence of the current issues section describe in what way the health facilities were taking a hit.
 * All the claims are from named people.
 * It is overall neutral.

Reliable Resources

 * Most statements are linked to journals which is reliable.
 * Sources are balanced.
 * No unsourced statements.

Reviewer Reflection

 * Based on this review I plan on adding citations more frequently, adding names if possible, and giving context to the instruments in my article.