User talk:Nickallen7/sandbox

Great job on evaluation, Nick! -Momo Sumomox4nouchi (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)sumomox4nouchi

Saher's Peer Review

Hi Nick,

Great proposed additions!

For the Healthcare availability for undocumented immigrants in the United States area article, I agree with you that the International Perspective section can definitely be developed. Your proposal to add the example of Sweden from the Biswas article is a great choice and ties in well with the section's current discussion about the increasing role of physicians. Are there other examples of European countries that support this claim? The Biswas paper also discusses Denmark and the Netherlands so perhaps other sources about these two countries will result in more examples to include? Alternatively, I also think it would be interesting if you included information in this section on how non-European countries are addressing the issue of undocumented immigrants and healthcare — perhaps an example of the Israeli system from the Filc paper? From a quick Google search, it seems like Canada, Brazil, and India also have high volumes of undocumented immigrants. It would be interesting to compare responses in countries in the Global South (Brazil, India) to responses from Westernized countries.

The two additions to the Political Debate section clearly address the topic of the section and are well-written, but I am unsure if they flow when placed together. The first addition mentions the consequence of an increase in the spread of preventable diseases. Since the second additional sentence begins by citing a study, as a reader, I expected the study to corroborate the previous sentence's claim about preventable diseases. Instead, I think it might be better if you include a study to support the preventable diseases claim immediately after that first sentence you wrote. Your second sentence about the pregnant women supports the statistics already in the current article about how much immigrants contribute to the economy.

Overall, I really appreciate your neutral tone throughout this article...I know universal health care a topic that we Berkeley students feel passionate about and I like how you presented your additions without swinging towards a certain perspective.

For the Immigrant health care in the United States sector article, I love your idea to add a new subsection on women! Your first section in this new proposed section discusses studies that show immigrant men being healthier than immigrant women — maybe you could include more details about this study since this is a pretty broad claim? What kind of population is included in this study? Without a couple more details, readers may generalize this claim. Also, are there any sources that discuss what methods have allowed female immigrants to gain improved health awareness? You could even include studies related to specific health issues associated with women such as reproductive health and maternal & child health.

Overall, fabulous additions — I'm excited to see where you are taking this! Good luck with further drafting.

-Saher Saherdaredia (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Response to Saher's Peer Review

Hi Saher, thanks for the feedback! One key suggestion I'm taking away from your peer review is to consider adding more countries' perspectives on this issue to the "International perspective" section. I think this is great input and I especially like your idea about comparing and contrasting how countries in the Global North and countries in the Global South are currently addressing this problem. I certainly plan to discuss both the Israeli healthcare system and those of Denmark and the Netherlands as discussed by Biswas, and I appreciate that you gave me some specific countries that might be interesting to look into with further research. In response to your comments about the "Political Debate" section, I will definitely be looking to rework these sentences to flow better together and as a part of the section as a whole. I think that I have had trouble finding a compromise between "encyclopedic tone" and smooth, coherent writing. I can see how a reader would expect the study referred to in sentence two to support the previous claim, so I will work on differentiating the two statements and perhaps including a reference to the source of the first statement as you mentioned. After reading your input on my Sector article, I will be turning my research towards expanding the "Women" subsection I am hoping to add. You make some good points that the limits of this study should be made clear, and that this section would benefit from a diversity of sources that provide complementary and/or confirming information. Your review has given me a lot to think about, thanks!

- Nick Nickallen7 (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Lorraine's Peer Review

Nick, very well-organized page! I will provide commentary for each respective section in the order that you have presented them in your sandbox.

International Perspective: I see that you have already added content to the Wikipedia article on Healthcare Availability. I like the way you have updated it. I was looking at the article cited as [10] preceding the content you added, and noticed that the paper actually talks about Swedish pediatricians’ open opposition to policies that exclude asylum-seeking children right after the statistic about Europe, i.e. the paper mirrors the article exactly. The content on Swedish pediatricians in article [10] is not cited from Biswas as you have cited it, but the structure is largely similar. In the spirit of preventing unintended plagiarism, however minute it may be, I just want you to be aware of this! I like the structure you have put forth; I think you could modify to “Swedish pediatricians have openly opposed” - I see that you are trying to mirror the “In Europe” from the previous existing sentence in the article, but I think “Swedish pediatricians” still flows will with the last sentence, and is more brief. I would add the word “have” just to follow the soft past tense used in the previous sentence about Europe (“pediatricians have been advocating for”). I think your last sentence looks great; you could perhaps switch “allows” to “has allowed” to flow better with what I have referred to as a softer version of past soft tense.

Political Debate: Great new content - I think it fits in well with what is already in the article! The facts are great and obviously very important, but I feel that right now they sort of detract from the paragraph because they stand out a bit too much. You could probably take out the “In support of this position” after your addition to make it flow better with your sentences; “this position” sounds a bit awkward with the facts you have presented but there could be a better transition (or no transition) there; if you take out the transition you can also take out the word “also” in that same sentence. I also think that the second facts sort of stands out as a statistic in a way that the other facts in the paragraph don’t; I think you should take out the part that says “one study” and change that to something less academic like “Eliminating public funds for for prenatal care for undocumented pregnant women has been linked with greater use of public funds…” and perhaps the word linked isn’t the right word there, but something along the lines of “association” without sounding too science-y would be good. This stays in line with the official but nonscientific language of the rest of the sentence. Also, I think you could abbreviate “Impeding undocumented immigrants from receiving health care” since that subject is already defined earlier in the paragraph, but that’s a very minor detail.

Federal Legislation: I love this content. It’s important! I see that you have already added some of this content to the page - awesome! For the first sentence, I feel like “excludes” might not be the word - maybe “inhibits” or “prevents” might fit better here. I am a little confused about the content of the second sentence. Are these community health centers for undocumented immigrants? The third sentence seems to make the case that they are, but I would provide some more clarity in the second sentence itself. Also, for the structure of the second sentence, I sort of like the sound of “While the ACA provides additional funding for community health centers and clinics, it is likely that physicians will pursue other options as a result of the increased number of insured persons” for more brevity/ less of an academic tone. The last sentence looks great!

Possible New Subsection: Women: I like this content, and appreciate that you’re looking at this issue from the lens of gender! Yes! I have suggested a rewrite with some minor reordering. “Studies have shown that the health gender gap in the US immigrant population is wider than than that between male and female US citizens. Studies have found that immigrant men are significantly healthier than immigrant women, and that this discrepancy could be partially be a result of improved awareness of health issues among female immigrants.”

Policy challenges and proposed solutions: Great paragraph, Nick. I like the placement of the text; I noticed that in the article, this would be at the end of the “Policy challenges and proposed solutions” section. You have added the content in the correct spot in terms of chronology. I think you should break the paragraph into two, the second/ new paragraph starting with the sentence right before the part you have added (“To address specific cultural impediments…”). Narrative medicine seems to flow well with this topic sentence. I think you should put the “Proposals vary…” sentence before the “Proponents believe…” sentence; this seems to flow better. Otherwise, the tone and content seem very consistent with that of the existing paragraph. Great work!

Great job, Nick! I really love the content you're adding to your articles. Thanks!

Best, L — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorraine.meriner (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Response to Lorraine's Peer Review

Hi Lorraine, I really appreciate the feedback! My changes to the "International Perspectives" section may be a little confusing. I did update a couple sentences in the article and my drafting is a further planned update. Although the Biswas article mentioned Swedish pediatricians, I think you're correct that the first sentence is primarily from the [10] source, and thus I will be sure to cite it as such when moving my drafting to the mainspace. I'll definitely consider the grammatical changes you mentioned as well, to work on writing coherently but with neutrality and encyclopedic tone. For the "Political Debate" section, I can see how it seems that my additions have been dropped into the middle of this paragraph. I will be editing the sentence after my additions, as you mentioned, to help them fit in more seamlessly. Good catch on the statistic standing out in a paragraph that has generally avoided them. I will see how I can rework this statement to be a statement supported by the statistic, and not just a statistic from a study. In terms of the "Federal Legislation" section, my statements are meant to suggest that community health centers are utilized heavily by undocumented immigrants, and the ACA has a mixed impact on them. I can see how this could not be clear to a reader, so I'll make sure to rework that second sentence to clarify, or possibly switch the order of the second and third sentences so that the importance of these health centers to undocumented persons is presented out front. I think I'm going to stick with "excludes" in the first sentence, partially to stress that this was done intentionally. I think it is more accurate as well since undocumented immigrants simply cannot receive full health insurance as a result of the legislation. Thanks for offering the rewrite for the "Women" subsection of my Sector article, and your suggestions for the "Policy challenges and proposed solutions" section are very helpful! I think the paragraph likely should be broken into two, especially considering that I have further plans to add to it. Thanks again for all the input!

-Nick Nickallen7 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)