Talk:Race and health in the United States

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sdragich, Claudiaisabel15, Rkr24 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kristine2016, Yaxeni, Zxp09.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aliguckes (article contribs).

Mental health and Woman and Infants

Both the Mental Health and the African Americans and mental health section only referred to the minority group of African Americans. To make the article more cohesive they were added as a subsection in the section on African Americans. A similar pattern was observed in the woman and infants section, it only talked about African Americans, so it was moved to that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiaisabel15 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

peer review

Race and Health in the United States

The Article’s Lead I think the articles lead could use a little more organization. It does well in including the important components of the article but delivers them in a choppy structure.

The Article’s Structure The structure of most sections makes sense. I feel like there should be more emphasize on the fact that other races are not really talked about but that statistics are used to support the fact that race leads to a difference in care. From the lead I got that other races would be mentioned here and there but they were really only mentioned in support of information of blacks and/ or african americans.

Balance of Viewpoints I think the viewpoint that this article is written is mainly from facts stated in sources. It talks about a view different things and I think this provides a holistic view of the care african americans receive. Length of section in Relation to Sources/Importance I feel like the section about maternal and child health is very short compared to the section that is before and the one that is after. There is definitely information that can be added to this section. There has been much controversy about the care that black women receive and its relation to the mortality trends that follow. There is also data about what this means for the children whether they survive or not. If they do survive they are faced with different life obstacles that maybe could have been prevented if their mothers had received proper care and survived labor. There is also the three sections in the end that are very short compared to the rest. Racism towards doctors and health care professionals, Homicide, and Trends sounds like tough topics to find information on so this might be why. These areas sound like thoughts that were begun but not completed.

Neutral Tone and Content (the peer review training module has a useful review) The article does good on staying on the side of the facts and not sounding like it is arguing against something. When something argumentative is brought up it is followed with a source which provides for more information.

Reliable Sources/Accessible Sources Sources seem like they are reliable, they come from a variety of publications and journals

(----Yaxeni) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaxeni (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead section is a bit lengthy, last two sentences I think are not necessary.

Mixed use of terminology, specifically “White” or “Caucasian” could be clarified.

In “Latino, Hispanic Populations”, I was a little confused by the way Hispanic/Latino was used interchangeably. The content of the section is great, though I would stick to using “Hispanic/Latino” in all instances, and adding a couple of sentences defining the terms as I think it is an important aspect of how race is integrated into society in the U.S.

Use of the first person in the article is also a small technical detail that could be improved.

In the “Mental Health” section under “Native Americans and Alaska Natives”, I think a clarification on what NHW stands for could help. It is used several times, though I don’t think it is stated as an abbreviation anywhere.

Overall, I think the new additions are very informative and very well structured. A gap I see in the information would be consistent information within the Maternal and Child Health section. Some sections have infant mortality rates, but I think one does not. I also think having maternal mortality rates for each group would be a good indicator of maternal health in the US. I think this information can be accessed through data from sources such as the CDC, NIH, or various health and medical journals.