The peer reviews were distributed between my talk page and as a response to my edit of the talk page for my article. The shared response I got was that I might be aiming for too much with my planned edits of the article. Furthermore, I was reminded to add citations, and keep a neutral voice. My plans for reorganization were affirmed by my reviews. My plan now is to begin with a reorganization, then add new information.
There was only one peer review left on the talk page for my article. The reviewer agreed with many of my points for improvement. They also mentioned that I should clean up the formatting, as there are some empty sections, and make sure the page follows a neutral tone. I will use these suggestions to make sure that any writing I add follows a neutral tone. I will also focus on adding into where there are holes in the article. I will also look to see if there are any broken links that can be fixed. I will also make sure that information in the source is cited properly.
One of the concerns most brought up was an emphasis on the addition of good sources. I would like to approach this by valuing quality sources over a large quantity of them. The rest was mostly of confirming that my plan was on the right track. The organization of the article is something I will work on in my future edits. I will continue with the direction I have been heading in but work on finding more/better sources.
(I could only find the feedback that was on my talk page, I was unable to find the feedback through the WikiEd page) Anyway the main feedback I received was to separate out the international reception of Caffarena’s work from the national one. I think that this is a really great idea, I think that the majority of my sources are internationally based. I will continue to look for ones from Chile but my lack of spanish speaking skills may pose a barrier. Even if I am unable to find national sources I think I will title the section as “International Reception of Work” just to add emphasis that the source material is internationally based.
The feedback I received was mostly in line with what I planned to with the article. The feedback I received suggested I add more sources to the article which I will do. The reviewer also added that I should check the existing sources for validity and to see if they were up to date which is a good idea I had not thought of.
Overall, the changes that I plan to make were agreed with. There were points made about some possible biased sources that I will continue to look into to avoid the use of such sources. After receiving this feedback, I have decided to entirely revamp the “History” section of the article. Currently, it is not history, and is all direct quotes. I plan on paraphrasing these quotes, and moving this section to a new section that is all about the actual goals of the Brazil Without Homophobia project. I also plan on linking more related articles in the text of my article, making sure that this article is no longer an “orphan.” The feedback that I received will help me to make my article more concise, give more information, and be formatted in a more clear way.
My peer review feedback was positive, with some constructive criticisms that were really helpful in giving me new ideas to improve my assigned article. After reading it, I’m looking to include information on how Gustavo Gutiérrez influenced other liberation theologians and how they expanded upon his arguments. Considering how I think the “Legacy” subsection, along with most of the article in general, is somewhat stubbish, this would go a long way in improving the page’s quality.
My peer reviewer agreed with most of my proposed edits. I think the feedback about where to put the “Impact” and “Criticism” or combined “Reception” was helpful as well. Most of the other things that my peer reviewer asked me to change the things that are already there, as in the summary of Seven Essays. I plan to use my references that I found to expand the parts about what people think about the book. The peer review will also help me to work with the content that is already on the page, instead of just redoing most of it.
My reviewers agreed that my plans to expand the history were good and that my sources are both reliable and much-needed by the page. One reviewer also mentioned that planning out the history of the group and perhaps providing more details about its ideology would strengthen the page, which I agree with. I also know that this reviewer identified the heavily-conspiratorial nature of parts of the article as problematic, which I also agree with.
I plan to use my sources to create a brief timeline of the group with some good examples sprinkled throughout it. This will add content to the main section and possibly clear things up better than they currently are. I would also like to flat-out remove the entire conspiracy section, but that may be more difficult.
The feedback I received in my three peer review evaluations was mostly positive, with a few elements of constructive criticism. I now plan to differentiate between Espín’s role as a revolutionary overall and her work promoting women’s rights during and after the revolution. I will likely try to find more specific information about her family and how she balanced work with motherhood in addition to transferring existing family information from the lead to a specific section. Having already planned to do so, I will also ensure that use of any biased sources such as those written by Espín or Fidel Castro are presented in context with an acknowledgement of their bias.