User talk:Sld101/sandbox

Prof. D. Feedback: I think your reviewers left really helpful comments, especially about where some clarification and explication may be helpful/in order, even if it may appear in the main article. I think the blood donation section is particularly salient and timely right now with blood shortages. I think there are some moments where tone could be toned down - such as "However, in reality, this is far from true" (maybe that's the only one right now).I do think some hyperlinking will strengthen this, as well as some time spent defining and explaining a little more as your reviewers below noted. The Treatment Disparities section could use a little more development. At the moment, it looks more like prevalence disparities than treatment disparities based on your content. Be sure to consider some of the HIV/AIDS related readings from a few weeks back. Also, this particular article has a bit of a long lead that may need some editing down. Also, the "Research" section seems to have some overlap with the "treatment disparities" section here. Let's be in touch and do a second round of review once we have Sanjuana's contributions up. Let me know. There are also some other related pages on HIV and people with aids that you may want to link to. --T. Danylevich (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review for Sophia, Romil, and Sanjuana by Georgia Payne

Overall, I thought your group did an excellent job on the draft! I assume this sandbox piece is part of a larger article, so I didn’t consider that the first paragraph was a lead. I also felt the article was well-organized, and each paragraph seemed to accomplish a specific goal, which was great! One perspective you could consider including in the article might be that of those institutions and groups who continue to support the lifetime ban.

A few specific comments:

Paragraph 1: “The lack of sensitive blood screening methods for HIV detection prompted the enactment of lifetime bans on blood donations from men who have sex with men (MSM), sex workers, and intravenous drug users, as these population groups were viewed to be at high risk of contracting HIV.” --- I am confused as to how the lack of sensitive blood screening methods led to the enactment of lifetime bans. Maybe adding a sentence before this one that explicitly explains what you mean here could be helpful? I thought the rest of this paragraph was done well!

Paragraph 2: “MSM and transgender women” --- I had to look up what MSM meant, which could just be ignorance on my behalf, but I think it would be helpful to offer a brief explanation of the acronym. “Treat as homogeneous population” --- It seems like the implication here is that healthcare providers assume MSM/transgender women have more sexual partners than other populations. I might explicitly state this for the reader. Otherwise, this paragraph was great!

Third paragraph is wonderful!

Fourth paragraph is also clear and well-done. I wonder if the last sentence needs a citation?

Overall, great job again! Feel free to email me if you have any questions about my comments.

Peer Review for Sophia, Romil, and Sanjuana by Hadley Greenwood (4/14/20)

Hello! I think this is a great and valuable addition, with a lot of important information and high quality sources. Your information and sources all seem to be up-to-date and timely, although I think some of the information and changes noted in paragraph 4 would benefit from dates. For example, when you note that the U.S. substituted the 12-month ban, a year or time frame for that would be helpful I think. I agree with Georgia that the final sentence should probably get a citation, given a statistic is being given making a pretty significant claim. This was a strong concluding paragraph for the "Blood Donation Restrictions on At-Risk Populations" section. The phrase "despite these small steps in the right direction" in paragraph 4 might be worth reviewing -- I completely agree with everything you're saying and explaining but I'm not sure if this violates the "neutrality" we're supposed to be aiming for in the assignment guidelines by identifying a "right" direction (although again, I completely agree it is the right direction!) I could be wrong though -- I'm not sure how far to take the direction of neutrality.

I think your earlier paragraphs do a really strong job of setting up the situation and providing accurate historical information in a neutral tone and manner. I also agree with Georgia's point on clarifying "homogenous populations" a bit in paragraph2. Something else I noticed in paragraph2 is the line "the donation ban on MSM and transgender women has further exacerbated growing distrust of the medical system within the LGBTQ+ community" -- here I think you reference other reasons for which the LGBTQ+ community distrusts the medical system without explicitly noting them elsewhere in the piece -- depending on your reader you might want to expand or provide some context for this point? Not a big issue at all and might not be necessary, but for clarity of the reading might be something to just consider.

Overall, a really strong addition that has relevant and timely content with strong data and statistics to back it up. Let me know if any of my feedback could use further clarification. Hadleyggeorgetown (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review for Sophia, Romil, and Sanjuana by Darren Danaie (4/14/20)

Overall, I think this is wonderful first draft. I find your facts and statistics well integrated into making your argument. The piece flows very nicely and accomplishes your goal of describing Blood Blood Donation Restrictions on At-Risk Populations.

In Paragraph 2: you begin with referencing a ban for MSM and transgender women without having introduced the transgender women concept in the first paragraph. Maybe just a sentence or a couple words will help. Also, maybe going into more detail concerning why these members of the LGBTQ+ community are being specifically targeted and not others, resulting in a total distrust from the community. Just a little context for that will help.

Paragraph 3 is really clear and focused. Paragraph 4 is also well done.

Treatment Disparities section: I found this section a little off-topic. I think it is good to set up some evidence on rates of infection in communities, but I also think it is also important to speak about what is blocking the access of different individuals to treatment. Is it mostly financial (I read somewhere that many Americans delay or skip some treatments ). Is there a scarcity in treatment because of geographical area? This are some questions you might want to consider.

Great first step and I'm excited to see more!