User:Mxf315/Obstacles to receiving mental health services among African American youth/Empen004 Peer Review

General info
Mxf315
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Mxf315/Obstacles to receiving mental health services among African American youth
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Obstacles to receiving mental health services among African American youth

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead for this Wiki page is well written and reflects the topics that will be discussed in a well-organized manner, so the reader is able to follow the flow of information. There is no need to add to the lead paragraph to the Wiki page because you have not added a new section. Rather, you have added supporting evidence to back up the claims that were already made, and I think this was a good call. The evidence you included is important and relevant and helps make this reading much stronger.

In your additions, however, I think it would be helpful to add some transitional sentences to your evidence. The sources are direct, and they relate to the paragraph in which you added them to, but a phrase or two that introduces your topics will help the flow. Your information does not need to be added to the lead, however, because it is supporting information upon the topic that was already introduced. I do think the introductory paragraph might actually be a little long and going into too much depth about the topics that will be addressed later on in their corresponding sections. I might consider rearranging the information so that the analysis of the themes that are introduced are not revealed until the dedicated section of the Wiki page.

Content:

The content that you included is very well done. It is relevant and fits perfectly in the flow of information in the section titled “clinician and therapeutic facts”. The introduction to this section does a good job in presenting the facts and explaining the circumstances and reoccurring problems in mental health services for African Americans. Your additions, however, bring a new light in showing the significance of this information and how they can cause damage to patients looking for mental health relief. For example, the original writing talks about the effectiveness of health care for African Americans, but you add that this ineffective treatment leads to underdiagnosed depression in young African American patients. It was a very good decision to add this information and bring the event into context. I would add your own analysis of the information as well, to connect the ideas of your evidence to the ideas of implicit bias in mental health treatment.

Additionally, your additions to the section titled “Religion/spirituality” are also well done. There are no citations before your additions, proving them to be necessary in this section. In reviewing your actual content and sources, they seem to be up to date and like I said many times already, they are relevant to the topic.

Wikipedia’s equity gaps explain how topics should address historically underrepresented populations or topics. Your additions bring light to the topic, revealing the negative effects of inefficient mental health treatment due to implicit bias by the doctor.

Tone and Balance:

The content that you added is neutral and relevant. The claims are not biased, as they simply address real circumstances by scholarly sources and recent studies. The viewpoints are not overrepresented because of the lack in understanding of the African American experience in mental health treatment. For this, your tone and balance are well done. I think that once you make the connection from your content to the themes of implicit bias in African American healthcare, the balance will be complete, and the flow will be better for the reader.

Sources and References:

All the content that you included in both sections are backed up with a citation of a scholarly, relevant, and up to date source. Additionally, these sources represent a diverse spectrum of authors and materials, ranging from publications to case studies and research statistics. The sources are good, and they are written in a way that is original, as you took the information and explained it in a critical way that brings context into the article. Make sure that your wording is not too like the original source, to follow rules on plagiarism. I would double check this and if you are directly quoting information, make sure to add these quotes as well as the source!

Functionality of the citations might be difficult, however. The reference section you added needs to be in APA or MLA format and it needs to include a link. When you add the citation, be sure to copy and paste the exact link where you received the article. From here, it will make the number [#] blue so that the reader can click it and be automatically redirected to the source. Once you use the citation tool on the toolbar at the top, the source should automatically be added in the right format to your references section. Then, when you publish the additions to the official article, they will be added to those official references section automatically. Be sure to test these citations before you publish your official edits.

Organization:

The content that you added is well written and fits well into the paragraph that you edited. I think that some context to the statistics that you added with citations would be beneficial in adding organizational flow to information. This will connect the ideas from your references to the main ideas that are introduced in the lead to the Wiki page. The spelling and grammar look good, and I do not see any errors.

Overall Impressions:

The content that you added have significantly increased the strength of this article. The sections of clinician and therapeutic factors and religion/spirituality needed more citation and context. You added these things in the right locations, following the flow of the article and branching off the ideas that are presented. The context that you added help elaborate these ideas well, though I do think you should reference the lead again to make sure to reiterate the themes that were established in the beginning and throughout the article.

Overall, well done!