User talk:ChiaO/sandbox

Peer Review

Ryan Pan

• if you have the time, maybe adding a section on the what causes (or adds to) disparities in access to medication in the united states
• Underneath each of the legislation sections, maybe adding the over
• maybe adding a graphic (map) comparing access of medicine to other countries
• adding to the campaigns, maybe delving into bigger non-profit/for profit organizations that help with access around the world
• more history on the world health organization, when did they acknoledge this as a problem, when was the term "access to medication" coined
• overall I like how you put in the different acts and you clearly state what the aim of the policy was vs what actually was the affect of the policy being passed
• I know a lot of research(slash public health efforts) is being done, to work with less fortunate areas of the world. For example, i attended on lecture on how people were training local doctors on how to circumcise kids in an effort to reduce the spread of STD's. I know this is weakly related, but my point is, maybe try and find some research on how people are trying to make transportation and storage or medications easier and thus makeing it more available to people in those areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanpan007 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

After viewing the original article and the edits you want to make, I really think adding in a legislation piece is important. You do a great job of highlighting the important legislation pieces that related back to the original article and it's clear where you want to go with the article.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I think you should definitely add citations within the piece and then in the reference section. Also, it might be helpful to break up the legislation piece into the two opposing arguments you use it would help to paint the bigger picture of the section and introduce the ideas surrounding legislation.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think adding the breakdown of the legislation piece would be helpful. Also maybe making a section header for the two pieces of legislation to formally organize the article.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

I liked how neutral you remained throughout the sections you plan to add, it was something I can definitely draw form and use in my article in order to avoid having an opinion.

__ Chiamaka, This is a good start. Make sure for each of the sections you add, you begin with a what/how/why statement--meaning, first you define what it is (e.g. the Trips agreement), how it works, and why it was established. This functions as a lead for each of the subsections so the reader can quickly orient him/herself to the topic at hand. I would also suggest making the sentences a bit shorter so they are are more focused on communicating a singular idea. This can be a challenge, but it is one way in which encyclopedic (i.e. reference) writing is a bit different from traditional academic writing. Any further thoughts about what else you might add to the article beyond potential solutions? I wonder if maybe adding some news information (from actual situations where access to medicine was a problem) would be useful to include.Amyc29 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)