User talk:Pinecone1500/sandbox

got to get moving--RJBazell (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Kapp Singer Peer Review
- If I were you, I would add a short intro section that's 2-3 sentences. The opening "Backgrounds" section of the article abruptly goes into the information and it would be nice to have a short opening bit about the healthcare industry. - In the "Providers and professionals" section, there is a statistic in the 4th paragraph that says "It is expected that the health share of the GDP will continue its upward trend, reaching 19.6 percent of GDP by 2016." Is there any way you can update this statistic to be more current – "by 2016" doesn't make much sense considering we're past 2016. There are a few other parts of this paragraph that also refer to outdated statistics (ostensibly from the same source). - In the "Delivery of services" section, the phrase "in the flesh" feels a bit informal for a Wikipedia article. "In person" may work better. - Give a few example of "Tele-Health" companies or systems? Are there any that stand out? - "Healthcare systems dictate the means by which health services are payed" replace with "Healthcare systems dictate the means by which people and institutions pay for health services." - I would move the "Medical tourism" section below the "Health Care Economy" section - in terms of section headings, just be consistent with capitalization - It could be nice to add a section about the future of healthcare or any cutting-edge technologies people are talking about. Maybe direct-to-consumer things like 23andMe? Any promising developments in poorer countries? I know I've heard about drone deliveries of medical supplies. Obviously wouldn't want to stray too far from healthcare industry. - Obviously in the U.S. there are tons of problems with the healthcare industry. You could either incorporate a dedicated section about outstanding issues in healthcare or alternatively just incorporate problems into different sections as you see fit. Obviously wouldn't want to get too U.S.-centric with it, but we do seem to have lots of problems (and more than other countries). - Overall though, the article is looking really good. You seem to have most aspects of a very stratified and complicated topic covered without getting too technical. Kseses14 (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yousra Peer Review
Logistics: -"For purpose of finance and management"-->put "the" before purpose. -This is really picky, but stay consistent with how you write healthcare because sometimes you included a space while other times you didn't -Include the link to the Wikipedia page on GDP -"The government does not ensure all-inclusive health care to every one of its natives, yet certain freely supported health care programs help to accommodate a portion of the elderly, crippled, and poor people and elected law guarantees community to crisis benefits paying little respect to capacity to pay."-->saying poor people in this sentence seems a little harsh -"However, large public public insurance"--> take out a public -Saying "for quite a long time" in your profits section is a little too ambiguous for this article

Suggestions: -Elaborate on how finances are funded between the different categories of healthcare (hospital activities, medical and dental practice activities, and other). Is this something that is disproportional between sections? Is other funded more than others since it encompasses multiple fields or is it less since they are more specialized? -Include which system of payment is more prevalently used in comparison to one another -Overall, I think it is a pretty good article. The only thing I would suggest is finding a way to make medical tourism more cohesive with the rest of the article since it just seems like something attached to the end. I also think you were planning on expanding the healthcare economy section, which would be good choice Taylor O&#39;Neil (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)