User talk:Djward21/Psychological resilience/CDLR50 Peer Review

Peer Review Response :)
I truly appreciate your feedback and insights. It's great to hear that the opening paragraph and the definition of resilience were helpful in providing both background and detailed understanding. I understand your point about the Lead section lacking a brief description of the subsequent sections, and I agree that a summary of the article's coverage at the beginning would enhance its readability, particularly considering its length. I'm glad to hear that you found the "Criticism" sections throughout the article valuable, as they present a well-rounded perspective on resilience. Your suggestion to improve the organization and length of certain sections, such as "Other Factors" and "Building Resistance," is duly noted, and I'll make sure to consider more concise and better-structured subheadings in those areas. I'm delighted to hear that you enjoyed the exploration of building resilience and its implications, including the noteworthy subtopic on language. Additionally, I agree that the "Specific Situations" section could benefit from clearer organization and summaries to cater to readers' attention spans. It's wonderful that the article's inclusion of other cultures' approaches to resilience resonated with you, highlighting a diverse perspective. I'm grateful for your appreciation of the concluding "Criticism" section and your suggestion to further delve into arguments against the promotion of resilience and potential labeling issues. Finally, I'm glad the article's sources were comprehensive and up-to-date, providing a solid foundation for the information presented. Your evaluation is invaluable, especially given your limited time, and I thank you for sharing your thoughts to help improve the overall quality of the article. 2600:1700:6720:16C0:A9B5:1429:6DB4:6AD6 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)