User talk:Hroitberg/sandbox

Peer Review
Review of article at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hroitberg/sandbox

Lead: Pretty good summary, remember to change it to reflect your planned additions.

Content: A lot of your planned additions are good, but some might be a little excessive. Your section on "the first dream" uses a long quote which wikipedia tries to avoid. Try to eliminate and paraphrase quotes where you can, especially from academics. Try to work on synthesizing the ideas of the many academics cited; currently, a few paragraphs read like an annotated list of work about her. Try sorting it more by ideas, like separate into who's saying she's important, which writers said she was an ecofeminist etc and group the writing. Consider adding a "Further Reading" section at the end to bring the readers attention to works so that you don't need to dedicate space to analyzing them or so that lists of books you don't plan on analyzing don't take up so much space, like Tarsicio Herrera Zapién's books. You could have a whole bibliography section to list her surviving works and the translations we have or the works she inspired. As it stands, these sections are quite dense.

Tone and Balance: Tone is academic and article is fairly balanced. Your tone and style of writing is really academic and practiced which is great but try and make sure it's still simple enough for regular people to read. Like when you say "we can observe this in two ways" and launch into analysis, that little section could be shortened and simplified to something like "Sor Juana placed great importance in sound and the analysis of music..appears in several poems, including (poem). This poem (does/shows x). Finley built upon this by arguing..". "So involved was Sor Juana in the study of music, that..." could simply say "Sor Juana was so involved in the study of music that.." There's nothing wrong with what you've written, I'd just advise you to keep readability in mind when you edit.

Sources and References: Excellent, keep going!

Organization: There's a few grammatical errors: "...philosopher, musician composer, and poet of the Baroque school, and Hieronymite nun of New Spain (Mexico)." Remove the first 'and'. Your new organization seems good, but make sure the sections are balanced and try to stay on topic. Don't get too deep into historical context and try to link to other articles to explain that (I'd recommend linking to wiki's articles titled "Mexicans" and "Casta".) Make sure the sections are pretty balanced in length so that you can't be accused of pushing a feminist agenda, it seems like you're planning to have several sections addressing feminism when maybe they could all be put in one place. You could also organize a bunch of information into one "legacy" section where you can address Sorjuanistas, work she inspired, etc.

Overall: Great content and organizational additions. Try to synthesize and simplify your article by creating lists, grouping academics, and being mindful of your writing style to make sure it's concise and readable. Great job! Hadford (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi! I think your proposed changes to the article will all really benefit the article quality. I just have a couple of comments on your suggested additions. First, I think the section you want to add that talks about feminist movements and people that predate Juana Inès de la Cruz and the section on historical and geographical context will likely cover a lot of the same things so it may be a good idea to combine those sections or put one as a subsection of the other. I also think that the suggested section on religious context will be a great addition to the article but I wanted to suggest that within that section you discuss how this religious context influenced her works. I notice that you already have a section on the ideas underlying her works so I think it would be a good idea to in some way connect this to the religious context section. I think that you have done great work so far and I hope these suggestions help. --Aarwatson (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer review by Jenny Bouchier
Hello! Your proposed changes seem to be well thought-out, but I worry about scope creep. Maybe think about choosing a couple of these things to elaborate on. Adding context and preceding events/people is great, but I worry that it will seem more like an essay where this context would be required. Remember that this article must always be explicitly about Sor Juana. I would be especially careful about including any influences she might have had, such as Andal, unless you have a source backing that up. Personally, I think the most valuable change is adding the impact that Sor Juana has had on feminist movements and other influential people.

It looks like many of your actual changes consist of breaking up the text that is already there which is a good move as the current version is tiring to digest. But I found these changes hard to locate especially since the document formatting was lost in the edits. In sections that were not edited at all, it might have been best to just omit them with a note about the omission for clarity's sake.

Jbouchie (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback. Note: This article has received three peer reviews.
I will be sending a general statement that applies to all or virtually all of the first drafts and peer reviews through email to every member of the class, along with the grades for the peer reviews. On these "talk" pages I will only be posting my own feedback on the first drafts.

Notice that the article itself outright asks for improvement in the area of the influence Juana had on subsequent people and movements; it requests that people add citations to strengthen that part of it, so it would seem both reasonable and the path of least resistance to take that route. Furthermore, by focusing on the level of influence you can relatively easily emphasize her integration into the larger narrative of the history of feminism. I would discourage you from spending too much time on predecessors, especially when there is not a clear connection, but it is perhaps the case that you could do more with the specific religious/historical context in which she lived and worked. There is a plethora of serious recent scholarship on colonial New Spain (mexico) that you could draw on. At the same time, take seriously Hadford’s point that you can also use links to other Wikipedia articles to establish and deepen context. And then remember: that can go both ways! You will do a major service of integrating feminist figures into Wikipedia’s overall picture of the past/history by linking to Juana from other places, so she will end up on their radar screens as a significant figure. I think attention to Juana as an ecofeminist, and more use of the work of Theresa Ann Yugar (as you suggest) make a lot of sense. Here is her faculty page: https://bellarmine.lmu.edu/womensandgenderstudies/faculty/?expert=theresa.yugar There is currently only one small citation to Yugar’s work in the Juana article. You need to use her scholarship, but also keeping in mind Bouchier’s point about Juana’s influence, you should also think about how Yugar is not “only” a scholar but is also a feminist activist; see the Women’s Ordination Conference, Roman Catholic Women Priests. You can also listen to her (and some other religious feminists) on two episodes of the Religious Feminism Podcast: Latina Feminist Theology with Theresa A. Yugar and Interfaith Dialogue (https://www.the-exponent.com/an-interfaith-dialogue-among-mormon-catholic-muslim-and-jewish-women-on-womens-equality-day/). All the issues raised there could be useful, not just in the Juana article but also on the larger integration level. I believe you are able to cite to podcasts and websites on Wikipedia, so just in case here is the larger website for April Young Bennett’s Religious Feminism work (https://www.the-exponent.com/author/april/).FeliceLifshitz (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)FeliceLifshitz