User:Stazlouken/Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention/Nfaulk2 Peer Review

Lead Section
a.     How does the article currently read on Wikipedia in each domain above?

The current article has a confusing introduction sentence in the lead section. It does not elaborate on the difference between the academic journal and the Wikipedia article or the purpose of the journal. There are direct quotes in the first paragraph, and it appears to be a lot of information in one sentence (all issues related to LGBTQIA+ healthcare). There second paragraph goes into detail regarding barriers to healthcare, but it is not very concise. There is not much information regarding what this Wikipedia article covers and how each section is broken up.

b.     How will the student’s planned edits affect how the article reads on Wikipedia in each domain listed above?

Naomi is edited much of the lead section. She delved into psychosocial factors regarding LGBTQ health and barriers to healthcare access. She then concluded with a sentence regarding how the article is structured. Overall, her edit makes it clear what the purpose of this article is. The audience will be able to understand what to expect.

c.     What further recommendations do you have for the student making edits?

There are a few resources that appear to be from news articles (most likely from the previous version of the article). It may be helpful to include secondary sources after these sentences to have stronger evidence.

Article
d.     How does the article currently read on Wikipedia in each domain above?

Issues affecting LGBT people generally: The first paragraph includes a lot of information, and it may be helpful for readers to have different paragraphs going over topics (lifestyle, mental health, mortality, barriers to healthcare, etc.) There is some repeated information (mental health outcomes, bullying, discrimination when accessing healthcare). Heterosexism is defined but is a direct quote and doesn’t correlate with the above information very well. There is a section about lesbian patients under the General Issues section that seems out of place.

Causes of LGBT health disparities: I think this section does a good job of discussing societal factors that play a role in LGBTQ healthcare. However, there are sources here that are from newsletters. The “Medical students” is a hyperlink that could be removed as it is a bit distracting. There are also some direct quotes that could be removed and worded in a way that makes the passage easier to read.

LGBT Health and Social Support Networks: A lot of this section has few citations without much research to back up the claims. The first paragraph is regarding one study that was done and while it includes valuable information it is a bit difficult to read. The section appears longer than it needs to be including a paragraph for each study that was done regarding people identifying LGBTQ+ and social networks. The audience may want more concise information with take-home points.

Assisted reproductive technologies: This subtopic does not make much sense in the “issues affecting LGBT people generally” section. It appears a bit random to be at this part of the article.

Issues affecting Lesbians:

o   Breast Cancer: The second paragraph may not be necessary, appears to oppose the first paragraph that is a systematic review that is more recent with more evidence.

o   Depression and anxiety: unsure what “similar reasons” is referring to.

o   Obesity and fitness: Some information here is not from a secondary source.

o   Reproductive and Sexual Health: Lower SES and lower rates of insurance for bisexual individuals has no source backing up claim. A good portion of this paragraph has minimal evidence for information provided.

o   Pregnancy Healthcare for Lesbian Women: A good portion of the first paragraph goes into detail regarding one study done in 2009. It makes it difficult to follow and understand the findings. There is also information regarding an article in Rewire News, but no secondary sources backing up the claims.

Issues Affecting Gay Men:

o   Depression, Anxiety and Suicide: This section could be condensed to make it easier to follow. One paragraph is a direct quote from the GLMA.

o   HIV/AIDs: This paragraph includes increased risk of HIV within the MSM population. It delves into HIV history, but not sure if it is necessary for the purpose of this article.

Issues affecting bisexual people:

o   This section does a good job of giving information that is easy to read. It is clear and straight to the point.

Issues affecting transgender people:

o   This section incorporates citations from newsletters and a few areas do not have citations to back up the claims. It is not clear what the overarching point being made regarding to access to health care. There is a lot of history and quotes from politicians but not what potential barriers there are currently.

o   Mental Health: There is a lot of information here that makes this section difficult to follow. There is a sentence that states “other studies have found similar results” but does not elaborate what information that is or how it provides more evidence.

Health of LGBT People of Color:

o   The second paragraph includes findings from a study that could be condensed to. There are a lot of claims that are not supported with secondary sources. This section could be refined to make it easier to read with clear results from studies.

Healthcare Education:

o   There is a lot of information here that could be shortened/more concise. A lot of sentences include percentages and long names of foundations that make it a bit difficult to read.

e.     How will the student’s planned edits affect how the article reads on Wikipedia in each domain listed above?

Issues Affecting LGBTQIA people generally: I think it was important to include QIA+ in the topic in this section as terminology has changed over the past few years. The first sentence is clear in challenges for conducting research among this population. This section also includes an umbrella of barriers to healthcare access for all people that identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. It does not pinpoint one specific group which makes it easier to follow and more accurate with the title of this part of the article. Overall, great edits made compared to the previous article structure!

Causes of LGBT Health Disparities: I appreciate Naomi including what “minority stress” is, as it was referred to earlier but may not be something the audience is aware of. She also includes secondary resources that backs up her claims made in this paragraph. The section is easy to follow and explains underlying factors that play a role in LGBT health disparities.

f.      What further recommendations do you have for the student making edits?

This article includes a lot of information that may make it difficult for an audience to follow. There is also a lot of content that is not based on evidence and includes information from websites, newsletters, and magazines. I think making the paragraphs more concise (reducing background information about studies, political quotes, etc.) would help the audience get clear, accurate information. Breaking up each section based on gender and sexual identity is helpful. However, there is the challenge of making everyone feel included. By incorporating asexual, intersex, and queer populations, Naomi is doing a great job of bring more awareness to these minority groups. With the amount of sections in this article, is may be difficult to find sources for each section and update everything. I recommend picking a few topics that you are interested in and focusing on revising those to not make it overwhelming. I am also happy to share resources regarding PrEP for the HIV sections in this article if she chooses to incorporate information on that.