I contacted the folks at Wikiedu, and they said students should be able to find the link to see their peer reviews under the “My Articles” section of the course page,
I hope the feedback you received from your peers is helpful as you finalize your revisions!
From the feedback I received, I seem to be going in the right direction towards creating a more concise and effective article. The article lacks information on the individual’s personal life and goals, which are one of the things I will be improving. The suggestions I received were very helpful.
My reviewer agrees with my intended edits. They also understand that this article is very important to the understanding of the Cuban Revolution. I will continue down the path I have intended to with focusing on the translation and fixing the deadlinks.
I liked the feedback that I received. It mentioned multiple areas that I should revise that I hadn’t thought about. Specifically, there’s an area on the “La Violencia” page about conspiracies that makes up about a third of the page. This was mentioned to have too much importance compared to the other sections. It was generally helpful advice.
The feedback I received help me realize some areas that I could be overlooking. Specifically, I had not considered how it would be good to discuss MRTA’s inspiration from Tupac Amaru and what that means in the Peruvian context. I had planned to add the stated goals of the organization, but I had not intended to discuss the historical relevancy of Tupac Amaru aside from linking to the page. Feedback also suggested I incorporate information about the role of gender in MRTA, something I would probably have overlooked.
The feedback I received was very helpful, and gave me ideas that I had not previously considered, such as adding a photocopy of the newspaper itself. One of the changes I plan for the article is to find sources for the large amount of information marked “citation needed.” I also plan to add information on the newspaper’s impact on the world, and how the world has impacted the newspaper. The feedback to this plan included suggestions to add new headings to the article, and expanding the information and topics already provided in the article, which I plan to do as there is not much information in the article at present.
My reviews mentioned finding more sources to provide more content in addition to translating the content of the Spanish page, as well as clarifying my proposed edits on the Talk page. This review has reminded me to assume the audience of the final page could know fairly little about the context of my person’s actions (Ruth Buendía) and specificity is a good quality to have both in the Talk page and the final live page.
The feedback was helpful and constructive for my article. Of the suggestions I plan to include a lot of links to make my page more accessible in hopes that it will receive more attention from more seasoned wikipedia scholars. One of my peer reviewers suggested making new sections entirely for my article as the existing sections are small and not necessarily detailed. I will fo sure take this into consideration as I further construct my wikipedia page.
On my talk page, one peer had reviewed my planned edits and approved of my ideas to separate the “Form” and “Thematic Content” Sections. Also, my peer approved of my idea to separate the “Origins” section and create a new subsequent section covering the development of arpillera workshops. Also, my peer advised me to add more photos into the article, which I will be sure to do since readers could benefit from looking at more types of arpilleras.
There was only one peer review that I could find in response to my proposed edits. It basically agreed with my proposed edits, saying that I should do everything I listed. The main feedback I received was thought the wikipedia peer review template, so the feedback was in yes and no answers. The feedback I received agreed to organize my page and add more about her work and early life. I will continue with my plan for improving my article.