Talk:Social determinants of health in poverty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Please let me know if you have any comments. This is still a work in progress for a class at Rice University.

Thank you, Lbockhorn (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)lbockhorn

There is a lot of cleanup needed, which I can detail as I found time, but could you please identify the course, the professor, and whether it is listed at WP:USEP? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is from my user information: My name is Lauren, and I am a student at Rice University, in Houston, TX; Class of 2015. I am in an exciting course called "Poverty, Gender, and Human Development" working towards a minor in Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities, and will be making a contribution to related areas in Wikipedia. I am very interested in poverty, justice, building right relationships, and policy. I am interested in contributing to work on structural violence and other public institutions and broader systems that contribute to the continuation of poverty in the United States and across the globe.

This is the link to my class page on Wikipedia :,_Gender,_and_Development_(Diana_Strassmann_and_Anne_Chao)

Lbockhorn (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)lbockhorn

I've moved the USEP tag to the top of the talk page; someone needs to ask the online ambassadors or the professor to tag their articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I was instructed to do so but had my talk page removed and did not yet replace the tag. I apologize. Lbockhorn (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)lbockhorn

Cleanup needs[edit]

In general, it would be helpful to make the article read more like an encyclopedic entry than a term paper. Some specifics for general cleanup are:

  • There are spaces missing between sentences everywhere (between the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next).
  • There are culy quotes everywhere. Wikipedia uses straight quotes (curly quotes are usually from copying text either from sources or a word processor). See MOS:QUOTE.
  • The article is over-quoted. That preferable to an article being plagiarized, but we should still be writing in our own words as much as possible.
  • See WP:FN on footnote placement (after punctuation, no space).
  • See WP:MSH on section headings.
  • See WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINK-- the article is not wikified.
  • See WP:LEAD-- there isn't one. The lead reads like the introduction to a term paper rather than an encyclopedic entry.
  • See WP:ACCESS on location of images.
  • The article organization makes no sense to me; what is the reasoning behind the various section headings and how do they relate to one another and the topic.

Will identify more as I find time. Worried about the licensing on the graphs; just because they're hosted by a gov't entity doesn't make them free. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am more than happy to make these changes. However, have you made some of these changes yourself? It looks like you have on the edit history page. Thanks Lbockhorn (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)lbockhorn

I wikified the article by linking 157 other Wikipedia pages by inserting internal links directly into the text.

I resized images and moved the ones that did not have explicit references in the text to the beginning of the section / right underneath the subheading.

The organization of the article is explicitly explained under definitions and measurements before the article begins.

Lbockhorn (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)lbockhorn

Possible merge with social determinants of health[edit]

I and others brought up the idea of a merge with Lbockhorn when the article was still being developed in userspace, and I wanted to bring that discussion here now that the article has been created. There is a lot of interesting research in this article, but I do not see how it is, at the end of the day, covering a different 'encyclopedic' topic than the overall topic of social determinants of health. I agree that the main article is problematic, but by looking only at the poverty dimension in this article, rather than strengthening the main article and adding a poverty section there, a reader who reads both articles may come away confused and there is also a risk of repeated material. Perhaps the author could share again her original reasoning for not merging, and I'd like to hear from other editors any thoughts they have on possible merge. --Karl.brown (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have visited and read the page Social determinants of health many times, including the warnings, and because of those I would not like to simply extend on that page for many reasons.

I opt to create a new page rather than edit the existing page “Social Determinants in Health” for the following reasons:

1. That article has many tags for subpar content, including having multiple issues, being written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject, disputed neutrality, a slanted tone, and the perspective provided deals primarily with Canada and does not represent a world view.

2. This article does not provide a specific approach to how poverty, low income, or low socioeconomic status greatly affects the health of people, and how even with those in poverty there is great disparity between health outcomes. Neglect of this fact provides readers with a limited scope of just how divisively health care disparities cut society, even within similar income classes within a country and across the world.

3. Finally, structural causes inherent in society are not clearly represented, and need to be to provide a clear picture to the public of how structural institutions and policy provide these health differentials between different groups of people, even within the lives of the impoverished.

The reliance on Canadian information is a major problem for that page, and I do not want mine associated with their page until those problems are resolved. Also, the subheadings and organization would disappear if merged with their article. Recognizing the social determinants of health that the impoverished face is a completely different topic than the social determinant of health "poverty" in general. This population has its own set of determinants that are separate from wealth determinants, and placing this entire article in the poverty section of that seriously flawed article will only prevent that point from being made.

Lbockhorn (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)lbockhorn

322: Peer Review[edit]

This article is very informative with lots of relevant information on the topic. Great job. I just have a few comments on the article (of course you can decide not to take them)

For the lede (intro) of the article, it is discouraged to use a lot of citations, and it should be a concise overview of the topic. WP: LEDE

You use a number of quotations. Try to paraphrase what has been noted, found, etc in studies and just talk about what is important. This will help making your leded as concise as possible (or you can always add a section telling us why this topic is important.

maybe chop up the larger paragraphs into smaller ones- it'll give the reader a little break to digest and segment what they had read.

There are a lot of important information in this article with a lot of subsections. Try to link this article with related articles.

I feel that the organization with 'Socioeconomic' and 'Social position' could flow better. It seems that they are intertwined in a way that is hard to separate them.

'Governance/Policy' seems like it could be their own section.

'Societal psychological influences' and 'societal causes' seem as if they can be combined so as to reduce redundancy (unless you have a clear distinction between societal causes of gender norms)

The charts and graphs can be reformatted in a way that doesn't distract from the contents of the article.

Don't be afraid to cite throughout the article, there are many great points and relevant information!

Again, great job on an interesting article. Allyssa.abacan (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Edit[edit]

Very interesting topic!! This article is very informative and detailed. I have a few suggestions that I hope help to strengthen your article. The first is that there are many quotes. You should try to paraphrase the content in these quotes so that the information flows more smoothly in the article. In addition, you use graphics that are rather large, I recommend reformatting them so that they fit the encyclopedia style better. Try reading the page WP:UPIMAGE. A few of your sections are rather lengthy so I recommend utilizing subheadings and bullets to better organize your information. Under the "Urban" section you have an a. b. c. list, I think it might be neater to utilize bullets for this list instead. Under the "Structural violence" section, I think it would be helpful to lead with the definition instead of introducing the definition in the second paragraph just so that the information is more concise. Don't be afraid to paraphrase and remember it is an encyclopedia entry which is meant to provide clear concise information so try to include only the most relevant information so that it is clearly understandable to readers. Overall, great work! Cnovoa17 (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Edit[edit]

You've made some very ambitious edits to the original article! I have a few suggestions which may improve the quality of the article:

1) Lead Section - Revise the lead section to summarize the content of your article. The lead should be inviting and concise. Avoid creating lengthy paragraphs - save the detail for the body of the article. The second paragraph of the lead section is very extensive and requires chopping to maintain Wikipedia's standards of conciseness. My suggestion is to use the lead section to specifically define and characterize the issue. Don't worry about not explaining it fully because you have the rest of the article to do that.

2) Block Paragraphs - Divide large blocks of texts into several paragraphs. It is easier on the eyes and easier to follow in terms of reading. Also, some information in the article is quite repetitive - I don't think it would be imprudent to cut and splice certain sections to maintain conciseness.

3) Citations - There are many quotations in the article. Opt for paraphrasing rather than direct quotations. Also, refer to this page for the proper protocol on how to cite:

4) Language & Word Choice - Rather than being general in tone and content, offer more specific information and statistics. For example, you say, "Education plays an especially influential part in the lives of the impoverished." How does it do that? Rather than providing a general statement, provide substantive statistics and information

Good luck! You've done a lot of research and the content is quite substantive. I think the work that needs to be done now is stylistic and aesthetic. Saimatoppa (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)