Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

Whose work are you reviewing?

(Mkaddache)

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Mkaddache/Healthcare in the United States

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Healthcare in the United States

• Hi Mina! Here's my peer review for you,
• Lead
• There was not really any lead in this article and no edits were made to it as well.
• Content
• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes I believe that the added content is relevant to the topic and it highlights the difference racial disparities within healthcare, which was only alluded to in the original article as well as presents very interesting points on how newly developed technologies within American healthcare presents new challenges and literacy inequality between races as well. I think one way to improve this however would be to add in more information on how racial disparities or inequalities are seen through AI in healthcare with more academic sources to back up this claim. One way to do this is by introducing any specific intitiatives that have failed to take into account racial disparities and adding how it can be redesigned to do so.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Although I cannot directly evaluate this since there are no sources cited within the text or in the bibliography, the information regarding AI in healthcare leads me to presume that sources are from the past two decades, however sources should be cited to further solify this claim.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It is a bit unclear how the particular section/draft that was added fits into history section of this paper. I believe that it poses great value if it were to be added but I think that it is instead better to make it it's own section, perhaps titled "Racial Disparities and Inequalities within Healthcare System and Approaches" with separate subsections would be more effective.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Yes I do believe that this article deals with very important racial/ ethnic inequities that are found within healthcare systems and technologies within the US.
• Tone and Balance

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, I believe that the added content has a neutral tone.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: I would not say that any viewpoints are overrepresented, it seems more as if the viewpoints of the underrepresented races were instead being presented in an unbiased way.
• Sources and References

• As of now there are not any sources cited in the draft or any present within the bibiolography so I cannot comment on this.
• Organization

• Is the content added well-written - Yes the content was well written and read quite smoothly.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No there are not any errors in spelling or grammar.

• Is the content added well-organized - As mentioned above I think that this edit would really benefit from being its own section because I don't think that it fits directly in the history section of this paper. Please look at my comments above for further details on this.

Overall impressions

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - I think that a few ideas introduced within the article, such as the racial disparities found within AI could've been further added to upon with specific examples. Please refer to the above for a more specific suggestion/comment on this. Besides that I think that the added information on racial disparities is very relevant to this article and overall makes it much stronger and well-rounded.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• The strengths of the content added, as I mentioned above is definitely that the added information on racial disparities is very relevant to this article and overall makes it much stronger and well-rounded.

-Riya Arul