User:Rishib23/User:Angelica.gnlz/Rural health/Rishib23 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Angelica


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Angelica.gnlz/Rural health


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Angelica.gnlz/Rural_health&oldid=1085692603

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead is not edited, but given that the main contribution of the edit is to add in an example of medical pluralism in Ecuador and discussing the critical analysis surrounding these efforts, editing the lead is not super critical.

Content: I think the explanation for medical pluralism could be made a little bit clearer: Sentences like "Medical pluralism arises as an inorganic approach that encapsulates the battles between urban and rural health and is manifested in the practice of integrative medicine which is a more deliberate execution of that approach" doesn't provide much information about how medical pluralism concretely differs from dominant medical approaches. The description of the medical pluralism approaches in Ecuador provide some analysis of the approach but don't provide any details of its implementation. Similarly, the description of integrative medicine does a good job of explaining how it could integrate indigenous perspectives but doesn't provide any examples of the indigenous approaches to be integrated.

Tone and Balance: I think with more concrete examples the tone and balance of the contribution would be better. Right now, much of the contribution is a critical analysis of the benefits of the integrative medicine and medical pluralism without examples of what that includes. As a result, the tone is definitely biased in support of these approaches and the balance in terms of advantages and disadvantages suffers a bit as well. I think the discussion of the arena of critical perspectives seems a bit abstract, especially for a discussion of a medical approach, and definitely aims to persuade the reader in one direction.

Sources and References: I think the biggest improvement in this area is to add Wikipedia references and remove the in-text citation format from the needs talk history assignment.

Organization: I think the contribution is organized well, in terms of transitioning from a discussion of medical pluralism to integrative medicine and comparing both approaches. I think one area where the transition could be improved is discussing what the "concrete implementation" of medical pluralism means in terms of a difference in approach. Otherwise both seem like they are the same idea.

Overall Thoughts: Overall, I think the contribution is well-written. I think in terms of being a Wikipedia contribution, the tone and style needs to be changed a bit from the needs talk history style of essay to focus less on the critical analysis of these programs and the discourse surrounding them to instead focus on the implementation details of what both medical pluralism and integrative medicine look like and the ways they are similar and different. I think transitioning to a bit more factual style of writing would help improve the balance and tone in the article and provide more evidence for the value of medical pluralism and integrative medicine.