User:Krishgopalan/Healthcare in India/Rbwood 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? Krishgopalan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Healthcare in India

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
It may be helpful to add a sentence saying what the three projects within PPP are after the second sentence. Otherwise, the lead is concise and introduces the topic very well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Under the section "Effectiveness":

The second paragraph (about accountability) needs to be developed a little bit more. I'm not sure what accountability means in this case, who needs to be accountable, how did accountability made the program fail, etc.

The third paragraph in this section also needs some additional development. It would be helpful to talk about why state run programs are more effective than nationally run ones, and maybe talk about the downside to having state run programs if applicable. Also, this paragraph has some passive tone that doesn't sound like a wikipedia article ("It was found that...").

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I think the way the article was rearranged made it more balanced, however the section on rural telemedicine is much less thorough than the sections before it. Adding a little more about how this program works to this section would make the section seem more balanced. Some more information should be added to the second section as well, as there is much less information in the "Effectiveness" portion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
Overall the sources added to the article are useful, however it seems like there is still some information that is not cited. The section on RSBY is especially lacking in sources. I noticed there weren't any sources for this section in the original article, however some of the new information that was added is also lacking in sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
It would be helpful to do another round of editing for grammatical errors, including in sections pulled from the original article. Otherwise the organization is good. Splitting the article up into subsections seems to work well for this section of the article, however I am curious about how you are going to add this back into the original article since this section on PPP is already a sub-heading under the "Access to Healthcare" section. Maybe the section header should be "Effectiveness of PPP" since it is embedded in the "Initiatives to improve access" portion of the article and it would be unclear which initiative you are addressing the effectiveness of with the current header.

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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The edits improved the quality of the article fairly well. Adding the section header was helpful, however the second section needs some additional development to get the most out of adding an additional section. Rearranging the "Major Programs" section to address RSBY first was a great change and makes that section flow better. I think the main things that need to be done to finish improving the article is to add some more information to the sections I mentioned (maybe just an additional sentence to each one), adding a few more sources, and checking the grammar/tone throughout. Overall it's a good section, just needs a few minor changes.