User:Rbwood/Health in Peru/Subaitar34 Peer Review

General info
I'll be reviewing Rebecca Wood's (Rbwood) edits on the article Health in Peru.

Lead
The lead more or less touches briefly on the topics covered in the article, but isn't quite reflective of the additions yet. I think there could be more emphasis on the current issues and the risks posed to indigenous health since there is significant addition there. Overall, the lead in general is good and clear, including whatever was previously discussed in the article without too much detail.

Content
The content added is very clear and up to date. Everything is relevant and needed, improving the quality of the content in the article greatly. These seemed like important additions to make.

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral with no clear biases or over/underrepresented viewpoints. Most of it is factual and expresses the problem clearly without advocating any particular solution. I will say you can possibly expand more on the studies that disprove that indigenous health practices prevent them from seeking modern help (the last sentence). Maybe just an extra sentence or phrase to explain it will do.

Sources and References
The new content is all backed up with current sources. There is significant reliance on the WHO website for the facts, but also includes academic sources for the indigenous health section. The links do work. If I had to come with a critique, I guess I'd say to find a more academic or peer-reviewed source than Scientific American for the climate change portion? The information seems sound, but I think you can find the same information from a different source other than a magazine. However, everything else seems cited perfectly and sufficiently.

Organization
The content is well-written and easy to read. The way it is organized and breaks up the original article is a really effective improvement on the original. There are no obvious grammatical or spelling errors, though I would change "devote lots of resources to" to maybe significant, substantial, etc.

Overall impressions
I think the content added made the article a lot more complete, and the organization added was very needed. I would just suggest a slight change in the lead to reflect your new work and adding a sentence or two to explain the studies mentioned. The rest are small edits that I found just for the sake of finding something, because overall these additions to the article are very good.