User:Smg02/Health equity/Macybartlett Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Smg02


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Smg02/Health equity


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Health equity

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes! You did a great job introducing your new content in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think you perfectly show the difference in health inequities and health inequalities. I think some of the information you added to the lead can be moved into other sections of the article itself but I don't think that is a major issue.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes!
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I really appreciate your addition specifying the differences in equity and equality and emphasizing that there needs to be both in order to make real change.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Very well written. I think it fits perfectly within the tone of the other content.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All sources peer reviewed and reliable.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All within the past 11 years so within the statute of limitations but you may want to find something a little more current? Not detrimental in my opinion.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think you definitely raised the quality of the article with your additions. Your content is concise, well structured, and clarifies other information in the article well.