User:Kristiedelvalle/Clinic/Sabina Mahavni 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? Kristiedelvalle
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kristiedelvalle/sandbox
 * Article: Clinic

Kristie's Sandbox

For my sector research, I will add to the page “Clinic” a new section 4 “Mobile Clinics" (between existing sections 3 and 4)

Mobile Clinics[ edit]
Before foreign aid orgs or the state government were involved in healthcare, Costa Rica's inhabitants managed their own health care, and before biomedicine was even introduced, people relied on various socio cultural adaptations to prevent illnesses, such as personal hygiene and settlement patterns. A study done in rural Namibia, researchers observed the health changes of orphans and vulnerable children as well as  non-vulnerable children visiting a mobile clinic in rural Namibia where health facilities are far from the remote villages. Over 6 months, information on immunization status, diagnosis of anemia, skin and intestinal disorders, nutrition, dental disorders and referral was collected and showed that regular mobile clinic visits improved the health indices of child attendees.The study concluded that “careful planning of these [mobile clinic] programs in areas with similarly identified barriers may help correct the health disparities among Namibian [orphans and other vulnerable children] OVC and could be a first step in improving child morbidity and mortality in difficult-to-reach rural areas.

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
N/A (no revisions to the lead)

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
In the first sentence, I would spell out the word "organizations" instead of abbreviating it as orgs.

After the first sentence might be a good place to introduce what mobile clinics are and how they're used before jumping into the study, especially because there's not a separate Wikipedia article about mobile clinics you can hyperlink to. I'm having a little trouble understanding the direct connection between the first sentence and the second. It seems like the first sentence is more about traditional medicinal practices in Costa Rica but doesn't necessarily mention mobile clinics, and the second sentence describes a study done in Namibia. Since the article is about clinics in general (Not necessarily in Costa Rica), maybe it's not necessary to mention Costa Rica, or maybe you could include a study related to mobile clinics in Costa Rica specifically.

The study is super interesting! This is just a suggestion, but maybe you could start second sentence in the active voice instead of the passive voice: "In [insert year], researchers in rural Namibia..."

For the third sentence, I think it might sound better to use the active voice, saying "Over 6 months, they collected..."

Since the last sentence is a fairly long quote, it might make more sense to paraphrase it.

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
Yes, the tone sounds neutral and doesn't seem to introduce any bias.

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
The first source is a scholarly article titled "Community Participation in Health: The Politics of Primary Care in Costa Rica" and was published in print in 1993. Because the content your section is based on a study from the past, I don't think it's a big deal that the article was written that many years ago, but if some aspect of mobile clinics has changed since then, it might be a good idea to include a more recent source.

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
I think the organization of the paragraph is clear, but I think you could include a little more background information about mobile clinics before jumping into a particular study. Also, it might be good to add the term "mobile clinics" in the list under the section "Types."

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?

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
Yes, I think you've done a really good job first acknowledging that the "Clinic" article lacked information on mobile clinics and then adding a new section that describes evidence of how mobile clinics have benefited health care internationally. Could you clarify exactly where this section fits in the article? When you say between section 3 and 4, do you mean before the section labeled Types?