User:Klb123456/Race and health/Strawberries30 Peer Review

General info
Klb123456
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Klb123456/Race and health:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Race and health:

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: Reading through the article, it appears that the editor did not make any edits towards the lead. The author's edits are not new sections or articles that would require new edits into the lead. However, the original lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topic of how race affects health. The lead includes definitions and background information to clarify any confusion before going into the topic like how race is a social construct. Furthermore, there are brief descriptions of the article's major sections while also not presenting information that is irrelevant overly detailed, or concise.

Content: The added content is relevant to the topic as the editor added sentences to further contextualize how African Americans are receiving less care, especially in the COVID-19 case. Thus, the edits are up-to-date and relevant. Further evidence of the new edits being up to date is the sources are all around 2020 so the event of discrimination is pretty recent. The addition of these edits such as clarifying which ethnic group receives less care in pregnancy and higher rates of death is relevant to the previous sentence. However, I think that transition words or trying to work around the wording of it may help make a smoother transition between the previous and next sentence. The chosen article deals with Wikipedia's equity gap and does address topics related to historically underrepresented groups. Finally, the third bolded sentence requires the addition of the section that the editor is referencing or maybe a clarification of where it is going to go.

Tone and Balance: The added content is presented neutrally with facts and thus does not demonstrate or reveal any bias from the editor. The sentences that were added do not give any claims or viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. Thus, this means that the editor did not focus too much on one topic or attempt to persuade the readers in any direction with the information given. Rather, the information is relevant and concise.

Sources and References: The editor bolded the additional information and underneath placed the cited information. However, it would be more beneficial to place the citation after each sentence information that was added. For example, " African Americans have an increased risk of death due to birth and pregnancy by 2-3 times that of white people" The sentence placed in parenthesis was the editor's sentence however, I had added the [1]. I believe this was one of the requirements as well so by placing this in, it can help the readers find sources more easily. Reading through the information, the sources are all good sources, and the information was clearly conveyed without paraphrasing. Looking through the sources, as well, the information is current. Lastly, the citation portion of the article also needs to be revised a bit to ensure it looks like what Wikipedia requires.

Organization: The content that was added was clear and concise and did not contain any grammatical errors. However, the additions could be incorporated differently to allow a seamless transition. Looking at the original article, the sections are organized that reflect the topic of the article but also give the main idea of what each section is about.

Images and Media: The editor did not include images so this does not apply but the original article does include images that enhance the understanding of the article: places that have a malaria epidemic. However, because no images were included in their sandbox, the other questions do not apply.