User:Tommygoodwin/Healthcare in Rwanda/Pscil Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Tommygoodwin


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Tommygoodwin/Healthcare in Rwanda
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Healthcare in Rwanda

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The new lead provides significantly more information than the former and concisely and clearly describers the topic while giving a brief synopsis of what is to come. As other topics are flushed out, I'm confident the lead will match. So far, great start!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The content is incredibly relevant to the topic as it provides context and historical data on the development of healthcare in Rwanda. The content is is up-to-date and deals directly with Wikipedia's equity gaps. Rwandan health care is a considerably large topic and the current article provides no history.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The content of the article is neutral and does a great job at presenting the facts. So far, no viewpoints are overrepresented, but it is important to maintain this throughout the duration of this process.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The sources are active, credible, relevant, and represent a diverse spectrum of authors. The sources accurately reflect the literature on this topic, but as research progresses I would like to see more diverse sources, for example, direct Rwandan sources and potential data on the changing landscape of the healthcare field in Rwanda.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The content is concise, clear, and easy to read. There appear to be no grammatical or spelling errors. As you continue researching, I would like to see more topics drawn out. Perhaps look at developed healthcare Wikipedia pages for other research ideas to ensure comprehensive coverage.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

The content has greatly improved the quality of the article. Just in mentioning the Rwandan Genocide, the article is already more complete. This is the biggest strength of the content, as it had drastic impacts on the history of healthcare in Rwanda and forever changed its current framework. Continual research and additional topics like statistics, etc will continue to improve the article. Overall, you did a great job and I'm excited to see the final product! :)

-Lauren H.