User talk:Fitoarevalo/sandbox

Hi there, You have done an amazing evaluation of your article. Great work. A concern I have though is how many articles you have selected for your area. Which one do you plan to pursue for this course? I encourage you to edit as many articles as you please, but let us know your main choice.

-Momo Sumomox4nouchi (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)sumomox4nouchi

Shannon's Peer Review

The British Raj criminalised anal sex and oral sex (for both heterosexuals and homosexuals) under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which entered into force in 1861. This made it an offence for a person to voluntarily have "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." The law did effectively criminalize any non-procreative sex, but scholars have also argued that the original intention of Section 377 was to act as a means by which the British Raj could further police and control the body of the colonial subject. In colonial Victorian era morality, these subjects were seen as erotically perverse and in need of the imposition.[3]

The 'but' structure in the first sentence of your addition serves to imply some inconsistency between the two ideas, but they seem germane to me. I would suggest rewording: "The law effectively criminalized any non-procreative sex. Scholars have argued that Section 377 was a means by which the British Raj could further police and control the body of the colonial subject. In colonial Victorian era morality, these subjects were seen as erotically perverse and in need of the imposition.[3]" In checking out the source material, I recognize the eroticization of the colonial subject as connected to the settler-colonial perception of the people of the colonized world as somehow more animal. Is this what you mean to indicate in your last sentence?

--

The Indian Government faces both domestic and international pressures regarding the 'homosexual question'. Some Queer International Relations (IR) scholars have cited the Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) recent return to political power as a potential negative event for LGBT rights. The IR scholars argue that some of the anti-LGBT policy goals of the party are in part a result of 'state homophobia' that is meant to distract citizens from the rising social tensions that are consequence of globalization.[2] Indian foreign policy specialists regard this as a typical part of 'territorializing' and 'state building' where a nation such as India finds itself in need of self-identification as a post-colonial prominent rising power in a heterogeneous international space.[2] UN diplomats, in support of Indian sovereignty, find themselves in opposition to their own state's jurisprudence in an effort to resist the 'homocolonialist'. The 'homocolonialist' is identified as the US and other Western nations that judge other states as being either 'normal' or 'pathological' based on their own interpretations of how those states treat and view their LGBT populations and their rights.[2] A 2018 publication in the Journal Globalizations suggests that some of India's seemingly contradictory decisions in the international arena regarding the 'homosexual question' are a reaction to the seemingly moralistic imperialism of the West.[2] Other Queer IR specialists have recognized how "sovereignty and sexuality are entwined with one another". These scholars argue that the state in question exerts its power and justifies its regulation over sexuality because it is the mechanism by which it ensures its presence, inevitability, and expansion.[2]

In the sentence "The IR scholars argue that some of the anti-LGBT policy goals of the party are in part a result of 'state homophobia' that is meant to distract citizens from the rising social tensions that are consequence of globalization.[2]" it feels like a lot of conjecture. I think you could phrase it in such a way that would be more direct: "The IR scholars argue that the party's anti-LGBT policy goals may, as part of a program of 'state homophobia,' serve to distract citizens from the rising social tensions that are a consequence of globalization." Not sure if "IR scholars' is too vague a term to attribute to? Great job presenting a variety of perspectives.

--

For a new section entitled 'Beyond Medical Management' The preamble to the World Health Organization's Constitution defines health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."[7] Those living with HIV today are met with other challenges that go beyond the singular goal of lowering their viral load. A 2009 meta-analysis studying the correlates of HIV-stigma found that individuals living with higher stigma burden were more likely to have poorer physical and social health.[5] Insufficient social support and struggles with mental health were cited as some of the reasons.[5] A 2016 study sharing the WHO's definition of health critiques its 90-90-90 target goal, which is part of a larger strategy that aims to eliminate the AIDS epidemic as a public health threat by 2030, by arguing that it does not go far enough in ensuring the holistic health of PLHIV. The study suggests that maintenance of HIV and AIDS should go beyond the suppression of viral load and the prevention of opportunistic infection. It proposes adding a 'fourth 90' addressing a new 'quality of life' target that would focus specifically on increasing the quality of life for those that are able to suppress their viral load to undetectable levels along with new metrics to track the progress toward that target.[6] This study serves as an example of the shifting paradigm in the dynamics of the health care system from being heavily disease-oriented to more human-centered. This new dynamic asks what kind of support, other than medical support, PLHIV need to cope with and eliminate HIV-related stigmas.[5][6] Campaigns and marketing aimed at educating the general public in order to reduce any misplaced fears of HIV contraction is one example.[5]

The sentence "A 2016 study sharing the WHO's definition of health critiques its 90-90-90 target goal, which is part of a larger strategy that aims to eliminate the AIDS epidemic as a public health threat by 2030, by arguing that it does not go far enough in ensuring the holistic health of PLHIV." is a little confusing to parse. Perhaps breaking it into two sentences where the subjects are more clear? It's a bit difficult to determine what is referring to the WHO proposal and what is referring to the study, and which intentions and criticisms are being explored by whom. "This study serves as an example of the shifting paradigm in the dynamics of the health care system from being heavily disease-oriented to more human-centered." Could be slightly more impactful without the word "being," and the phrase "the shifting paradigm in the dynamics of the health care system" feels a little clunky to me. Overall, great work! A symmetrics (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Anna B's Peer Review

Hi Rudy!

I'd like to start by saying I really like your planned contributions and emphasis on topics. Your practice experience seems very interesting! The Area and Sector you chose to focus on within it is really great.

The scholarly articles you chose for your area and sector seem well planned and correlate with your topic well. I specifically was interested in the article you chose by Nagar and DasGupta, I think it would be really informational and beneficial to discuss it more within your drafting contributions as the article seems to focus more on the values and cultural understanding of LGBT concerns in India which I feel heavily relates to your organization that deals with public health. As mentioned in your drafting, "these subjects were seen as erotically perverse and in need of the imposition" but perhaps you could add why they are viewed they way? Overall the references and articles you chose for your sector seem very beneficial and reliable in ways of adding greater understanding to how the health side works in India and within your organization.

You have the minimum of 3 scholarly articles for your sector and area and I see in your drafting you were able to incorporate each article you chose which is great.

I think it's great you're also going to add more sections in your wiki article, as there seems to be a lot of good information you have to add onto these topics. The articles are also very dense so I would maybe advice editing by taking out or condensing information within it. I also wanted to note you might be using some references more than others, but understandably that can happen. My advice would be to incorporate more from less used articles as they all seem beneficial to your topic.

Overall you've been making great contributions so far, good luck with further drafting and beyond! :)

Annabutterfield (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Responding to Peer Review

Thank you both so much for taking the time to provide me with this feedback! It's much appreciated.

I definitely feel that, in general, I need to improve my clarity. To me this means that, along with my continued source finding and synthesizing, I will organize my thoughts more appropriately so that opposing or alternative views will be paired together in a cohesive thought while also flowing more seamlessly into a distinct but related topic. Additionally, I will work on diversifying the citations in some of my sections and not relying too heavily on one or a couple sources in an effort to better balance perspectives. Other than that I will also absolutely go back and edit my sentence structure to avoid any possible missed ambiguity. I must remind myself that while my writing might make sense to me, that might not be the case for the larger audience I am supposed to be writing for.

I also realize that much of my planned contributions are looking to be their own sections. I do understand some of the complications that I can run into in this undertaking and appreciate that you shared others. With this in mind, I will work more toward making my additional sections seem as part of the article as the other already present sections are while also sticking to my initial goal of adding considerations that I felt were neglected in these discussions.

I look forward to chugging on!--Fitoarevalo (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)