User:Gbe16/sandbox

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cSrf6jbnuoNdFxUt1LL6WkcrNvjyOo-RFGlr4Y-xLLE/edit

Hey Grace, here is my review for you and Grace's article. Thank you for sharing your work with me :)

Assigned Article: Sexism in Medicine by Grace and Obi (Review made by User Mhf55)

The peer review was made based on Grace’s google doc and Obi’ sandbox I also read the overall wiki article to compare with their contribution.

·      Overall Article:

I looked at the overall wiki article because Obi and Grace did some fact checking on it. As far as the fact checking is concerned, I think they both did a really good job. The data are generally pretty recent (btw 2010-2016). I also cliqued on a couple of references to check if the access was open to the public and most of them was. Finally, as far as cross-linking is concerned in the article I think it would be interesting to add more of it. This article touches on a lot of aspects that belong to different spheres such as medicine, gender, pain, abuse, discrimination etc… And I think it would be more interesting for the reader to have the opportunity to quickly be directed to other articles on those topics.

Though I realize that this part was out of your contributions, I think a quick structural adjustment to do would be to put the “History” section at the beginning of the article. Indeed, it is currently located at the very end of the article which is a bit confusing.

Finally, in the “See Also” section, I would add a reference to our wiki article “gender disparities in mental health” because I think it is related to some aspects, especially to the female patient section of your article. We will also add your article in the “See Also” of our wiki page J

--> Grace’s contribution: 

Grace worked on the introduction as well as fact checking.

I found your introduction to be really clear and well-crafted. The previous introduction was using pretty biased expressions such “macho” culture or “being passed over for promotion” and you did a really great job at adopting the “neutral” tone expected by Wikipedia.

You also kept the structure of the former introduction by taking the same succession of ideas but making it more neutral and explanatory. You talked about sexism both in the perspective of the patient and in that of the doctor which offers a complete lens over the topic.

My only suggestion would be regarding your last point on the stereotypes men are victim of when they work as nurse. I think it would be more impactful if you detached this sentence from the rest of the introduction as it is a very different aspect of the problem. You could also prepare a transition between your point on the “discrepancy in treating female patient’s pain over that of male patients” and your final point on male nurse, maybe by explaining how the existence of sexist stereotypes also affect male doctors in certain settings. I think such a transition would connect your ideas and make them even more powerful.

Also, you may plan on doing it once the intro is live but just a heads up to crosslink to other wiki article. For example, “Sexism”/ “Medicine”/ “Discrimination”/ “Pain” are all keywords that could be cross-linked to other wiki articles.

But other than that you did a really great job! J

--> Obi’s contribution: 

Obi focused on history as well as female patients.

·      History Section:

In the “history” section, you did a really good job at stating neutral historical facts and providing the reader with sources and crosslinks to refer to.

All the sources mentioned were accessible to me and up to date.

I was thinking maybe you could also refer to our reading on Audre Lorde’s fight against breast cancer and how sexism in the medical field impacted her own experience with doctors and the way she was treated.

You created the basis for more people to contribute to the section since I imagine there are a lot of cases in the history where sexism in medicine was at play. Therefore, I hope other wikipedians will build up on your contribution.

·      Female patients:

In the “female patients” section, you did a really good job at building up on the existing content and provide more information to the reader about it. For example, the article was mentioning the expression “bikini medicine” but without giving any more explanation on it. In your edit, you gave some content to this term which was really helpful to me.

I see that your section touches on the increase in the prescription of opioids to women. I was thinking that if any of the podcasts we listened to in class is accessible to the public, maybe you could refer to it in your discussion? Or add a note about it?

I also liked how you placed the section in a more international context by referring to non-western countries such as South Korea, China, Singapore and Taïwan. I hope this will create the space to expose more narratives on the topic.

From what I read, you really respected the neutral tone expected from Wikipedia and did a great job at analyzing fact and connecting it to what we learned in class.

--> Concluding feedback: 

Thank you for sharing your work with me. I think you did a really good job at correcting the lack of neutrality present in this article and providing the reader with a more comprehensive approach of the subject. The sources you provided are also accessible and pretty up to date.

I worked on “Gender disparities and Mental Health” and I really found some common thoughts and connection while reading your article. Therefore I think it would be really helpful if we both refer to each other’s wiki article in the “See Also” page J

'''-->End Peer-review. (User: Mhf55)'''

Peer-review from Laf78

The tone of the article is neutral, facts and sources seem reliable and accessible, representations seems appropriate. There are a few grammar issues in Female Patients and the History sections (an extra word here and there, sometimes repeated words). In Female Patients I would describe or hyperlink to "bikini medicine" because I am unfamiliar with what that means. Similarly, the word "ergotism" in the History section referring to the witch trials is so niche I would define it. Also, I don't think the part about labor pain experimentation is quite relevant to the history section, unless the significance of it can be further explained. Overall, I think your contributions to the page really benefitted this wiki and improved the quality!