User:CBailey24/Health care rationing/Mackenziebrumbaugh Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * CBailey24
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:CBailey24/Health care rationing

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * yes it has
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes, it is in the original article
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * it somewhat refers to the fact that it is different in each country, but is mostly expanding on the definition rather than giving a brief description
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes, it further expands on the definition of health care rationing
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think that the lead doesn't quite flow, and that combining the sentences could help make it more concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes it is
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * it is talking about arguments surrounding health care rationing and the bringing up of "consumer sovereignty" does not seem really neutral, as well as the use of terms like "important"
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The ethical justifications of health care rationing seems somewhat biased in the beginning of the paragraph, but seems really good when talking about the different types of allocation.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think that the article could be strengthened by talking about people who believe that health care rationing is unethical.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Overall, I do not believe that the article is attempting to persuade me a certain way, but there are some instances in the ethics section and whenever arguments about health care rationing is brought up. I think it is important to share both sides of the argument rather than just one.
 * In the ethics section, the last two sentences seem somewhat persuasive because I know people who would disagree with those claims, so I think it could help the article if they were revised or removed.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes, but the lead can be cleaned up slightly.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * at the end of the ethics section, "alway" should be changed to "always"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, really well-organized

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * yes, it has brought in more information on the topic, as well as bringing in more recent information about the Coronavirus
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * more updated information
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * just really reading over and making sure it is read as neutral as possible!

Overall evaluation
Overall, the additions to the article that you are making are really good and I enjoyed reading it. There are some points where you can be more concise in your writing and slightly more neutral, but I think the information you are adding is going to really update the article as a whole! Good job! :)