User:Keerthikonda/Healthcare in India/AleutianTea Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Keerthikonda


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keerthikonda/Healthcare_in_India?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Healthcare in India

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead: N/A

Content: Your contribution under "Access to healthcare" feels a little bit out of place. It is not entirely clear how it connects to the preceding sentence on Millennium Development Goals nor the sentence that follows. Making the connection clearer will help the seamlessness of this section. Also, the sentence feels very long -- maybe consider taking out the detail of it being a 70 year process and/or dividing the sentence into two.

As for the "Rural areas" contribution, I think its great. It flows wonderfully with the rest of the paragraph. However, I recommend taking out the semicolon in order for it to seem less like an essay and more like an encyclopedia. The section following the semicolon, "if healthcare providers are able to understand these cultural nuances, they may be able to provide culturally-sensitive services specifically tailored to the needs and preferences of these communities", sounds like an opinion -- though it very well could be true. It could be useful to make it clear that this viewpoint is held by relevant scholars. This might mean adding a phrase like "Some scholars believe...".

I really enjoyed reading your contribution under "Financing". You added extremely important information while discussing equity gaps -- as Wikipedia suggests. However, I think it could be useful to connect the following paragraph with yours. Personally, I think an easy way to do this would be to connect the privatization of the Indian healthcare system (as someone else mentions) to low government spending on healthcare (as you mention). The following sentence feels very much like a sentence that should be at the very beginning of this section: "Despite being one of the most populous countries, India has the most private healthcare in the world." Having it follow your section makes the transition feel a little rough. I highly recommend editing this sentence and making it flow in your section and/or deleting it and replacing it with a sentence that makes the transition between your section and the next section smoother.

As for your contribution under "Initiatives to improve access", I would consider moving it towards the top of the list as you mention it marked the beginning of Indian gov. intervention in the health of the elderly -- this provides a more linear telling of interventions. I think it is super awesome you added a whole new section. I would recommend shortening/dividing your sentences up, especially the first one. In this sentence you address what, why, how, and its importance: giving each of these categories their own sentence (not strictly, I think the "what" and "how" could go together) could help your contribution 1) remain grammatically correct, 2) uphold the tone of an encyclopedia, and 3) feel easier to read. For example: "The National Policy on Older Persons was established by the Indian government in 1999. This policy sought to ensure the well-being of the elderly through financial assistance, healthcare, shelter, etc. It marked the beginning of government intervention in the needs of the elderly ." I have my own reservations on how I edited that but it is just meant to illustrate what I was thinking.

Tone and Balance: I think there is room for increasing neutrality. I think this comes down to very slight rewording of some sentences; namely, making it clear that you are referring to scholarship and not personal opinions. While I think most of the information you added makes your potential viewpoint clear, I don't think this is negative. I think your contributions respond to Wikipedia's call to adding information that points to equity gaps.

Sources and References: I highly recommend citing more of your information. This will hopefully help expand your References list. Though, the reference you have is current -- so that's great.

Organization: I think you add your contributions to relevant sections. Though I think there is space for improving how they flow with the contributions of others. This may mean editing what surrounds your own contributions. Furthermore, I recommend editing the length of your sentences. They feel slightly like an essay. Longer sentences also run an increased risk of issues with grammar -- I have noticed this in my own writing. I think fixing up the length of sentences would help improve some grammatical issues.

Images and Media: N/A

For New Articles Only: N/A

Overall Impressions: Overall, I think you added great information. It felt relevant and much needed. As for recommendations, I mention them throughout the above sections.