User:Mkaddache/Community health/Riyaaarul Peer Review

General info
(Mkaddache)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Hi Mina! Here's my peer review for you, Lead
 * The lead has been edited to be more specific towards the definition of what community health is defined as. I believe that the clarification that community health is "non-treatment based" is very important to include as often times this is glanced over by readers who don't have much knowledge on the topic itself. As for the rest of the lead, it stays concise and does not include any extra details so I believe that it is overall effective now with the added edits.  Content
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I believe that the content added is relevant to the paper as it includes an extra section on on how Limited English Proficiency (LEP) patients may be affected by poor efforts in community health and how there should be more initiatives aimed to increase their awareness on their rights within healthcare.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Because I do not have access to the bibliography of the new edits and citations are yet to be added, I cannot evaluate this. But I would double check the citations and make sure that new information is within the last decade or two.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think that all of the content that is added is very relevant to the paper as it brings more specificity on definitions regarding community health as well more perspectives in which initiatives can target underrepresented people.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Yes, the additional section on increasing transparency of healthcare rights for LEP patients really addresses an important equity gap in community health.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - I would say that the content has a neutral tone and follows the guidelines for neutral content.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: I think the viewpoint that is introduced regarding LEPs can definitely be expanded upon within the edits. Maybe defining it better and adding more context on what the specific challenges that LEPs face would be a good start for this.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.
 * Are the sources current? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.
 * Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? - The new sources are not yet cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot yet comment on this.
 * Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I would say that in terms of prose and language the added edits are easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not that I have seen.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - I think that the added section on how LEPs can be taken into account with respect to community health can be it's own subsection: I would title it "Community Health With Respect to LEP Patients, or Addressing Marginalized Groups"

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - I think there is definitely room to add more towards the end of the article on how community health initiatives can cater toward underrepresented groups such as LEP's and even other groups to further strengthen its main claims. I also think that more work can be done in the lead to further set up the challenges that are discussed later on as this seems a little out of place after the lead is presented.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I really do think that the strengths in this article's edits come from its ability to to redefine and specifically explain the term community health as well as add in the difference marginalized groups that can be assisted through its proper implementations. This really added another perspective to the paper that was previously unclear or not there.

-Riya Arul