User talk:Rachelannett/sandbox

Respond to Peer Reviews
Hey Alexis, Thank you very much for your suggestions! You actually mentioned a lot of additions and changes that I talked with Clare about. I plan to adjust a lot of the formatting on the Cuba article and add quite a bit more material to the education bit, like you suggested. I like how you suggested I organize the tier system part. I think that will make the section a lot easier to read. I decided with Clare that most of my edits are going to go toward the Cuba article since there is a lot to do there, although I will add what I have to the transformative learning article. Thank you!!! Rachelannett (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Keerthi, Oh no! I think your review didn't save or got deleted? Rachelannett (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer review - Keerthi
Hey Rachel! I'm so sorry, I don't know why what I had written got cut off! But here's what I thought anyway. I really liked the changes you made on the page. I thought it was really relevant to add the section on the National health system, since that seems like a key part of healthcare in Cuba to talk about. The tier system makes it very easy to follow, however I might suggest that when explaining the tiers, you connect them to the tier. So you could number the descriptions, or make separate paragraphs for each of them. Perhaps you can mention what the hospitals and medical institutes look like as well, after the polyclinics paragraph.

The training doctors section seems like it could be connected to another section? It seems like it's more of the Medical Education System that you are describing. But I do think it's really important and shows critical insight into the success and values behind the healthcare system.

The Transformative Learning section is really insightful, and I think your additions are important to have in it. Looking at the page in general, however, it looks like the sections are really long and could be organized into smaller subsections.

Ksundaramurthy (talk • contribs) 05:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review: Alexis Montoya
Loved reading through all of your work and learning about the content of both of your focuses! Just listed a few thoughts I had as I read through everything!

Area: Health in Cuba
I really like the addition of the new sections and I think it definitely fills gaps that the article has! Maybe a suggestion for the formatting of the new section titled "National health system": You list the 6 tiers of the national health system and then proceed to address each of the health tiers a little bit and their function in the scheme of the health system. Perhaps instead of writing these descriptions in subsequent paragraphs you could bullet each of the 6 tier systems and then right next to the bullet/number you can write the short note about them. I think having this list format makes it a little easier for the reader to link what each tier in system does and also provides a list format that outlines the tiers in their hierarchical fashion. (idk if this makes sense so I put a little example below):

Cuba's national health system is made up of multiple tiers:

4) community polyclinics - Polyclinics are community-based clinics that house primary care specialists. They exist in every Cuban community and are well-acquainted with the people and the communities they serve...

5) hospitals - ...

6) medical institutes - ...

That said, not all parts of the tier system were addressed with a subsequent note about them (what I mean is you wrote several lines for polyclinics but nothing was written for hospitals fit into the tier system) -- you could perhaps try and add descriptors for each of the tiers to contextualize each in the context of the national health system set up/infrastructure. Just a suggestion! :-)

For the second new heading titled "Training doctors"

"Doctors are trained without separating education and practice. Medical and nursing students mentor and intern within the system discussed above from the first years of their training" -- Perhaps here you can elaborate on the "without separating education and practice a little bit" and describe more of the mentoring system. The title of training doctors is very specific which I think is awesome because then you can really delve deeper into the subject and detail their training. Maybe you can add certain overarching principals that they have as a part of their training, perhaps the duration of their training (how many years is medical school, internship, etc.), what field are most doctors trained in, etc.

"Ethics and values are a taught as a large part of the Cuban healthcare system alongside science and technology" - perhaps you can elaborate a bit more on this, especially the ethics bit. Maybe you can touch a bit on population demographics of the nations and statistics of what the economic/disenfranchised communities are and how the ethical training of the program allows/prepares them to tend to these vulnerable populations. Anmontoya (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sector: Transformative Learning
I really enjoyed the content of this page; I think its something that fits the concept of your PE Org perfectly!! It is also a super developed page and deep with philosophical/ideological content so I can see how it might be difficult to add something new to.

Everything you discuss here is cited which is great. I also really enjoy how you kept the tone of everything here super neutral and just added to the views of the theory/theorists (factual) -- wikipedia would be proud. Maybe for each of these additions you can elaborate slightly more and expand to maybe two sentences for each edit further elaborating on the edits you have proposed.

I have a suggestion and it might be a super big feat but just a thought: Perhaps you can create a new section titled critiques of transformative learning (or something along those lines). The section titled "Other Perspectives" does critique and introduce other perspectives to the theory but I feel that the clarity of the title is misleading. Perhaps you could change the name of section to say "other perspectives and critiques" or keep the title of "other perspectives" and make another section called "critiques" and maybe you can go through the "other perspectives" section and separate the content into the two categories to make for a more clear and easy read. I guess my suggestion here is again a formatting suggestion for clarity and strengthening of your arguments through the strengthening of the page. Anmontoya (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)