User talk:BelchingFox/Slow violence/Aemoe85 Peer Review

Peer Review Response
Dear Aerin, Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on my article. I appreciate the time you took to review my work and your positive comments about the article's start and its neutrality. Your suggestions have given me valuable insights into how I can improve my article further.


 * 1) Merging Description and Definitions: Your suggestion to merge the description and definitions section for a more cohesive lead is excellent. I see how this can enhance the clarity and flow of the article's introduction. I will work on integrating these sections and ensure the lead also highlights the main sections covered in the body of the article.
 * 2) Maintaining Neutrality: I acknowledge your point regarding the use of emotive language in the "A Case Study from Nova Scotia" section. It's crucial that the article maintains a neutral tone throughout to ensure it adheres to academic standards. I will revise this section to describe the events in a way that conveys their seriousness without using subjective adjectives.
 * 3) Criticism Section: Your query about the necessity of a criticism section is well-taken. On reflection, I agree that the critiques of slow violence and its consequences are addressed in other sections of the article. I will review this section to determine whether it is redundant or if it can be integrated more effectively into the rest of the article.
 * 4) Sources and Relevance: I'm glad to hear that the sources were found to be functional, relevant, and diverse.
 * 5) Counteracting Slow Violence: Your suggestion to explore forms of slow resistance, such as the BDS movement and tree sitters in the tar sands blockade, is intriguing. I will consider how these examples can be incorporated into the article to illustrate the variety of responses to slow violence. It's important to approach these topics with the same neutrality and rigor as the rest of the article, so I will ensure any additions are well-researched and presented objectively.

Your feedback has been invaluable in identifying areas for improvement and potential expansions of the article's content. I will work on these revisions to enhance the article's clarity, neutrality, and comprehensiveness. Thank you again for your insightful review.

Thanks MacBoo2024 2601:1C0:4D81:1C40:255B:E509:78DD:A799 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Aerin, @Aemoe85
 * I also appreciate the time you took to so thoroughly offer feedback! There are definitely so many ways in which we could likely go with this, and you offer very strong examples. I had considered a critiques section, but it may be unnecessary as you said and also potentially out of our wheelhouse for this assignment considering the other work we are hoping to do. Certainly a lot to improve, and you have been most helpful!! Thanks again:) Szelinsky (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)