![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This outline looks really solid, and you are off to a running start with the body text which is full of factual, clearly stated, relevant, and well-cited information in the parts that you have elaborated so far.
When I look at the lead, I feel like the included material makes up what should be the second paragraph of the lead, forming a list of authoritative evaluations of the subject by scholars (sentences 1-3), the World Health Organization, the US government ("Healthy People 2030"). The beginning of the lead should be more like that of Race and health in the United States, stating the existence of disparities first, as well as the domains where they occur. Consider editing this sentence into the opening one:
Or inserting a sentence before it like this:
With regard to the rest of the lead, the sentences on biological factors and social factors are good starts, and will likely evolve over time. The WHO sentence falls afoul of a technicality in how we write on Wikipedia. You are making the case that deficiencies in US maternal mortality by race are a human rights issue. While this is compelling, Wikipedians don't make such arguments in their own voice or cite third-party sources that don't refer to the topic of the article (it's called WP:SYNTH), but the encyclopedia can and does follow other sources that do so. In this case, you could attribute this conclusion to the American Public Health Association, which argues here that "maternal mortality is also a significant human rights issue" when specifically talking about the "large and persistent disparities in US maternal mortality by race/ethnicity." Relatedly, you should let readers know that Healthy People 2030 is an initiative of the Federal government (and what agency sponsors it).
Some useful general advice on tone from WP:BETTER: "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. … It is not Wikipedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything, only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them." So wherever possible, state facts rather than including evaluations in your summaries.
I'm eager to see how this article develops.-- Carwil ( talk) 21:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I left my edits on the peer review page for your article! Cecilesaleh ( talk) 22:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a wide-ranging, detailed, organized, well-informed, and well-cited article, drawing on an impressive amount of research. Still, here I am to make lots of suggestions that I think will make it even better.
Conceptually, I feel like there are only two significant absences:
A technicality you'll want to read first:
Here are some places for wording improvement (mostly on the lead since the body paragraphs are largely fantastic):
Two (possibly future) additions:
Great work so far, and good luck with where you take this. — Carwil ( talk) 16:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
PurplePhoneLaptop (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Puppyluver1234.
— Assignment last updated by PurplePhoneLaptop ( talk) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bluecalypso (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Bluecalypso ( talk) 02:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This outline looks really solid, and you are off to a running start with the body text which is full of factual, clearly stated, relevant, and well-cited information in the parts that you have elaborated so far.
When I look at the lead, I feel like the included material makes up what should be the second paragraph of the lead, forming a list of authoritative evaluations of the subject by scholars (sentences 1-3), the World Health Organization, the US government ("Healthy People 2030"). The beginning of the lead should be more like that of Race and health in the United States, stating the existence of disparities first, as well as the domains where they occur. Consider editing this sentence into the opening one:
Or inserting a sentence before it like this:
With regard to the rest of the lead, the sentences on biological factors and social factors are good starts, and will likely evolve over time. The WHO sentence falls afoul of a technicality in how we write on Wikipedia. You are making the case that deficiencies in US maternal mortality by race are a human rights issue. While this is compelling, Wikipedians don't make such arguments in their own voice or cite third-party sources that don't refer to the topic of the article (it's called WP:SYNTH), but the encyclopedia can and does follow other sources that do so. In this case, you could attribute this conclusion to the American Public Health Association, which argues here that "maternal mortality is also a significant human rights issue" when specifically talking about the "large and persistent disparities in US maternal mortality by race/ethnicity." Relatedly, you should let readers know that Healthy People 2030 is an initiative of the Federal government (and what agency sponsors it).
Some useful general advice on tone from WP:BETTER: "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. … It is not Wikipedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything, only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them." So wherever possible, state facts rather than including evaluations in your summaries.
I'm eager to see how this article develops.-- Carwil ( talk) 21:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I left my edits on the peer review page for your article! Cecilesaleh ( talk) 22:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a wide-ranging, detailed, organized, well-informed, and well-cited article, drawing on an impressive amount of research. Still, here I am to make lots of suggestions that I think will make it even better.
Conceptually, I feel like there are only two significant absences:
A technicality you'll want to read first:
Here are some places for wording improvement (mostly on the lead since the body paragraphs are largely fantastic):
Two (possibly future) additions:
Great work so far, and good luck with where you take this. — Carwil ( talk) 16:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
PurplePhoneLaptop (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Puppyluver1234.
— Assignment last updated by PurplePhoneLaptop ( talk) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bluecalypso (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Bluecalypso ( talk) 02:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)