User talk:Mhf55/sandbox

Article Evaluation : "Opposition to the Poor Laws"

 * Evaluating Content:

The article is very knowledgable with a lot of references to historical facts, authors and events. However, it is sometimes hard to see the link between the different parts when you don't have the background knowledge on the poor law and the oppositions these laws face in the early 19th century. In the part about the criticism of the Poor Laws, the emphasis is put on the thinkings of Ricardo and Malthus whereas another significant opposition was coming from the powerful landholding class for which the Poor Laws had become a fiscal Burden. There could also be a reminder that the Napoleonic Wars created a mass employment that increased the recipients targeted by the Poor Laws.


 * Evaluating Tone:

The tone of the article seems pretty neutral to me. A part deals with economic thinking but it is clear enough that these thoughts belong to economists of the time and not to the writers of the article.


 * Evaluating Sources:

I randomly clicked on several citations. The links were working for all of them except for the one entitled "Radical associations" that send me to a rather doubtful webpage.


 * Checking the talkpage:

A few messages can be read on the talk page, mostly dealing with how the article could be improved.

The article is part of a WikiProject History, aiming at improving the coverage of this historical subject on Wikipedia.

Anna's Peer Review
-The Article’s Lead: the old article’s lead section was very long and not a great overview of the topic/article to come. I think Lily did a great job of summing up the article in a more concise way while retaining the proposed theories used to explain gender differences in mental health. I found especially helpful the last sentence of the lead section that clearly explained what specifically this wikipedia article will discuss. Lastly, I think it’s great that you included those who identify as gender queer. Great work!

-The Article’s Structure: you all did a great job with reorganization of the article for a much more cohesive structure. The old structure was rather confusing and a bulk of information was addressed in the lead section but not within its own main section. Adding main sections on the gender differences in mental health for women/men and the LGBT+ community makes it much easier for the reader to find the content they are looking for and allows the article to flow much more nicely. The structure looks great and I wouldn’t change anything! -Balance of Viewpoints/ length of section in relation to sources/importance: you did a great job of balancing the amount of information equally so that both the women/men differences section and the LGBT+ section had an equal amount of content. This is important in showing that mental health conditions affect both groups and deserve to be addressed equally in both groups. With the significant amount of research available on what causes mental health conditions it is important that a large portion of the article is dedicated to these causes, and you balanced this section’s length well with the remainder of the article. This helps to show that the causes of mental disorders are just as important as the disorders themselves, especially from the realm of preventative medicine where we can aim to prevent mental disorders by preventing these causes.

-Neutral Tone and Content: Overall the article’s neutrality was good and didn’t lean towards one opinion or another, or try to persuade the reader. It was very straightforward and factual like it should be. The only place neutral tone could maybe be edited was in the coping mechanism among the LGBTQ community section (although I’m not great with wikipedia neutrality so this might actually be good). (within this section I also thought the second sentence could be worded differently to clarify that the coping mechanism is safe or risky, not the person)

-Reliable Sources/Accessible Sources: With sources you did a great job of citing within the text, although I noticed that in some sections more citations could be added for sentences that make unsupported claims. For example in the sexual violence section “data suggests that 30 to 80 percent of sexual assault survivors develop PTSD” is not cited. Overall your sources were from reliable publications/organizations and you did a great job of hyperlinking each source for easy access.

Assessing Improvement of Article: You all transformed this article and it looks so much better. As a reader I have a much clearer understanding of mental health differences amongst different gender identities as well as what causes these differences. I’m very impressed by how much work you all put into this article. Great job!

Overall review of content: It’s wonderful that you added a main section on mental health for the LGBT+ community and people who don’t conform to a traditional gender because they too are affected with mental conditions and face more judgement/stigma in society that could cause greater mental health challenges. I also appreciate that you added eating disorders as a mental condition because it is one that is often overlooked as a mental health condition and is drastically determined by gender. I also liked that for the intimate partner violence section you not only showed that IPV has caused mental disorders but you also explained what is likely to cause IPV itself. As I will potentially work in the healthcare field in the future I found it very relevant that you included gender bias in medicine and how a clinician’s bias can impact patient diagnosis, care, and outcomes. Lastly, I think it’s important that you addressed coping mechanisms for mental disorders and the influence of socioeconomic status and the social determinants of health on mental illness. Your content improvements were great!

For additional content (which you guys already have done so much and probably don’t need to add more but could be interesting to think about), is there any data available that looks at gender differences in hospitalization for mental conditions? Also I was thinking you could add more mental health conditions that might vary in prevalence due to gender such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and OCD. I also thought you could add a substance abuse subcategory to the main women/men section.

Suggestions: One suggestion I might add is that some of the sections use a lot of quoted phrases that I think you could paraphrase instead. Also, in the gender bias in medicine section what is your source for the statement “indeed, women are more likely to disclose mental health disorders to their physician while men are more likely to disclose problems with alcohol use” (and other statements in that paragraph))? In addition, I noticed that sometimes you referred to LGBT+ and other times LGBTQ so maybe just choose one or the other and use it consistently. Overall for editing my main recommendation is to make sure all of your sentences/claims are supported with a citation so that the reader can easily find the source of the material.

Ahs86 (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)ahs86