User:Kristiedelvalle/Healthcare in Costa Rica/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: Healthcare in Costa Rica

Kristie's Sandbox:

For my area research, I will add to the page "Healthcare in Costa Rica" a new section called "Reformed Healthcare Litigation"

Reformed Healthcare Litigation[ edit]
The development of the current public and private healthcare system in Costa Rica and its movement towards a progressive system came about as a response to a growing constitutional health rights in Costa Rica. The Supreme Court (the Sala IV) released litigations for medications, treatments, and other health care issues. Criticism from inside the health system regarding “the court’s jurisprudence elevated the right to health above financial considerations, and as a result posed a threat to the financial well-being of the state-run health care system."  To address these criticisms, the Sala IV partnered with the Cochrane Collaboration to integrate medical professional evaluations in its decision-making process for claims seeking access to medication.

A  2014 study researched successful health rights litigation and showed that >70% of favorable rulings were for low-priority medications in Costa Rica, revealing an unfair access to medications. Then a study was conducted researching the court’s reformed ruling process and whether it has changed in favor of the health rights conversation. It revealed that the probability of winning a medication lawsuit has increased drastically over time. The percent of rulings granting experimental medications has declined while the percent granting high-priority medications increased. Based on these results, in comparison to the court’s pre-reform process, the reformed new process has led to some minor gains in fairness.

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

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
Yes, I think the section you added is very important to explaining how Costa Rica's current health care system came to be and the reform process it went through. The source for this new section is a scholarly article written in June 2018, which is pretty up-to-date considering it's used to describe the reformation period Costa Rica's health care system went through at the time.

Q: Where in the article would this new section be added? Would it go at the very end?

Regarding the quote you include in the first paragraph, I think it might be better to paraphrase the content, maybe something like: "The court values the right to health above health care costs, which may threaten the financial health of the state-run health care system."

In the second paragraph (first sentence), I would write out 'greater than 70%' as opposed to '>70%'.

Q: Does the study mentioned use the word "unfair"? Otherwise, this might conflict with the neutral tone of the article.

The last 3 sentences of the second paragraph read a little like an essay. I think you could shorten them, maybe something like this: "A 2014 study regarding the court's reformed ruling process found that the percent of rulings granting experimental medications has declined while the percent granting high-priority medications increased, indicating..." It seems like some types of rulings have declined in percentage while others have increased, so I'm not sure it makes send to generalize that 'the probability of winning a medication lawsuit has increased drastically over time' but I may just be misunderstanding the study. It seems a little biased to say that the reformed process has increased fairness unless it's said explicitly in the study — then it might be a good idea to quote 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, all the content added seems fairly neutral, but there are a few areas where you generalize the results of a study with terms like "fairness", and I think it may be better to quote the study when using normative terms. And if the study does not use those terms but the general consensus is that access to medications was "unfair", maybe find a study that includes that does include that term.

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
Yes, it seems like all the sources are reliable and relatively current. For this revision, you referenced a scholarly article titled "Revisiting Health Rights Litigation and Access to Medications in Costa Rica: Preliminary Evidence from the Cochrane Collaboration Reform." It was written in June 2018 but describes a reform initiated in 2014, so there's no need for a more recent source unless new information regarding the reform has come up since 2018.

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
The content is very clear and easy to read. I made some recommendations to paraphrase long quotes so it reads a little bit less like an essay, but other than that, the content is very well-organized and concise.

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
Great job! I do think the content improves the overall quality of the article, especially because it adds information on health care reform that's relevant to Costa Rica's health system today.